: /\ wA 'jfifr- /\ W^ A- 
* *£fe?°* # s&kS ***&k°* <*•&& 






-*-%. ' 





















^0 X 



* ^ 



v ^~*' ^ v* 7 ^* .o° 













s-' ^ 



aV-*. 



.• .«** ^. ^w . ** y % •«• ^ X 'WW ^ 



' ,* v *v *>"€%** A V '<J> -JOB** <*' -^ '.'VVV 4 V ^ 






^ ^ 






r , 







^ 



rv^ .t . 



*- ^ 






-• \^\-a&.%^ v ..afii\x^ • 












.' **?■»"• ^o 4 terns** "ov* :«^ift*. "^o* .';^^ 



V*'- 












•i^.A 



"«. ^ 












<> *'VVi % *0 



'° Smote: ° 







%, 









* ^ v: 














^. "- <v 




> .•i^v ^< 



^ '*•- 




jr..*': 



^ ^ fc ^?* A ^ 




A v > 



o^ ,••« 












* - . 1 • 







ft ^ -.^^/ > ^ v 






^J" ^v A** * 



"of 



*, 

& 



++# 



> ^ 







^ ^ A* ♦*< 



** A* 



V* 






•bv* 



r . 







c°* / 



* ^ V^HIJS 



4 o 










° A ••: 












m? : J*\. °^w : *?\ z -m& : **\u \WW: ^ 



°o^ # *7^ - ^ ^ * ^T^ r ^ 



*0. A» 






v**«.1 






fty % % «k>^ V T ^\^ %/-5?»V ; 






■^o % 







•^o"" 

^ ^ .*■ 




^ .J> 

















•^. 



























R E P O E T 



JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE GENERAL ASSftfBLY, 



PUBLIC WORKS OF OHIO 



POiNTID BY THE ! K JL It; 1&56> 

appointment 0F THREK JoiNT lNVJ8TIGA , rm<a Cr> 

.DbWWCNO TBFTn FfctntBS AND T ,,r DUTIES." 



COLUJM B US: 



-\fc^ 



S b 



REPORT 



OF THE 



JOINT COMMITTEE 



OF THE 



GENEfiAI ASSEMBLYON THE PUBLIC WOBKS. 

APPOINTED BY THE ACT OF APRIL 11, 1856 
Milled -An Act for the appointment of three joint investigating committees defining 
their powers and prescribing their duties * ^ 



In Senate, January 8, 1857. 
Laid on the table and ordered to be printed. 



To the General Assembly of the State of Ohio ■ 

Cornelius S. Hamilton, Cl.airman and John A m °JS^ed by appointing 
-ding day U,e following «J£S££l t iSSftSfc^S F 

Neil House, Columbus, Ohio,) 

Jacob Buckehsm^b, Jb., President of the Board of Pullic IZL"' ^ 

** PC... and Facais?«aasass^ as 



2 

and Paul Weatherly and John A. Blair of the House of Representatives, were 
appointed a joint committee of the General Assembly on the Public Works, and by 
said act it is made their duty " during the recess of the General Assembly, fully 
to investigate all the transactions and expenditures of the Board of Public Works 
and make report thereon at the adjourned session," to be held in Columbus on 
the first Monday of January next. 

In accordance with the provisions of said act, the said Cornelius S. Hamilton, 
Paul Weatherly and John A. Blair met in this city on the 12th inst., and organized 
by appointing Cornelius S. Hamilton Chairman of the Committee, and directed 
him to address a letter to the Pres dent of the Board of Public Works, informing 
him, and through him the Board, that the Committee is organized, and ready to 
enter upon the investigation contemplated by the act aforesaid, and requesting 
him to communicate to the undersigned when and in what manner it will best suit 
the convenience of the Board to allow the committee to examine such of the books 
and papers in the office of the Board as they may deem necessary and proper. 

In entering upon the discharge of this very delicate and important trust, ths 
committee take occasion to say that to the majority of them the members of the 
present board, as well as their predecessors in office, are almost entire strangers, 
and that they do- not come to the discharge of their duties filled with suspicion and 
eager to find something which shall bring down upon the members of the present, 
or any former board the condemnation of the General Assembly, or the people ; 
and they sincerely desire that the most scrutinizing investigation which they may 
be able to make, may not tend to destroy the confidence of the people in their 
public agents. The committee would prefer above all things to find the affairs of 
the public works in such condition as to justify them in reporting that all is right — 
in making such a report as would tend to remove from the minds of the people all 
doubt as to to their ability to select honest and capable men for places of honor 
and power. 

No member of the committee, you will allow me to say, has any ill feelings to 
o-ratify towards any one now, or formerly connected with the administration of the 
affairs of the Public Works ; they have no favorites to shield from censure ; and 
they will steadily strive to conduct this investigation with a view only to ascertain 
the truth and promote the public good. 

It will aid the committee very much in the investigation if the members of th» 
present board will favor us with their counsel and co-operation, and more espe- 
cially now, as we are about to enter upon it, as the committee are quite unac- 
quainted with the details of the management of the Public Works. 

Very Respectfully, yours, 

C. S. HAMILTON, Chairman. 

To this the following answer was received the next day : 

Office of the Board of Public Works,) 
Columbus, 0., May 14th, 1856.} 
C S. Hamilton, Esq., Chairman, &c. 

g m: — Your note of yesterday is received, and in answer I am instructed to say 
that the Board is ready now to submit all the books, papers and records of the 
Public Works, to the Committee, of which you are Chairman, for your examina- 
tion, whenever and so long as your own convenience will suggest. The Secretary 
of the Board is instructed to aid and assist you as far as possible, and each mem- 
ber will take pleasure in co-operating with you to the extent of his power. 

By order of the Board ; 

J. BLICKENSDERFER, Jr., President. 



3 

The treatment we have received from all the members of the board has been 
such as the kind tone of this note seemed to justify us in expecting. 

The law appointing us made it our duty " during the recess of the General 
Assembly, fully to investigate all the transactions and expenditures of the Board 
of Public Works, and make report thereon at the adjourned session." It will be 
seen that the field of investigation opened to us by the act is very extensive, and 
that the duties imposed upon us are various and important. We saw at once that 
it mattered not how much we might do, a great deal must of necessity remain 
undone, for in the short time allotted to us by the law, it was utterly impossible 
to do every thing that it appeared to authorize. Finding that we could not do 
every thing that the law seemed to contemplate, we were driven to the necessity 
of deciding what transactions and expenditures of the Board of Public Works we 
would investigate, and what we would not, and the decision of this point was per- 
haps the most difficult and embarrassing duty we have been called upon to per- 
form during the whole investigation. However, after much reflection, we deter- 
mined to give precedence in our inquiries to transactions of such recent date, and 
of such a nature, that in case we found the public interest had suffered by any 
mis-management or fraud of any of the officers connected with the Public Works, 
there might still be a chance to right whatever wrongs we might discover ; and 
if, after we had exhausted cases of this kind, we found we stdl had time, we 
would push our investigation farther. 

Without further explanation we now proceed to the consideration of the par- 
ticular matters which have been the subjects of our inquiries ; and first — 

THE LETTINGS OF THE REPAIRS OF THE PUBLIC WORKS, FOR 
FIVE YEARS, FROM THE 15TH NOV., 1855. 

By a law passed March 6, 1845, (Swan's Statutes, page 764,) the Board of 
Public Works was authorized to let the repairs by contract. The law reads as 
follows : 

Sec. 5. That whenever, in the opinion of said Board, it will be for the public 
interest, to let by contract the keeping in repair of all, or any portion of the Pub- 
lic Works, except the National Road, said Board may divide any portion of the 
same into suitable and convenient sections ; and, thereupon, said Board shall give 
due notice of the time and place of letting for said repairs, with the plans and 
specifications of said repairs, and the manner of doing the same, and the Board 
shall let the same by sections to the lowest responsible bidder, for any term of 
years, not exceeding five, upon the condition that the bidder or bidders shall make, 
execute and deliver to said Board, a bond, with security, to be approved by said 
Board, in any sum not less than double the amount of the contract price, payable 
to the State of Ohio, conditioned for the faithful performance of said contract, and 
upon such other terms and conditions as said Board may determine : Provided, 
that said Board shall in no case let by contract the keeping in repair of the Pub- 
lic Works, or any portion thereof, by sections as aforesaid, unless the same can he 
done at a price less than the average price of keeping the same in repair for the 
last six years ; provided, further, that in making appointments of officers or agents, 
the letting of contracts to individuals or companies, fixing the salaries o( agents, 
engineers, clerks or other servants of the Board, not otherwise provided by law, 
or in making extra allowances on any contract to an amount exceeding tiny dol- 
lars, the order shall be made by ye; s and nays, and entered of record in il.e 
books of the Hoard. 

Acting under the authority given in this law, the Pond of Public Works, oo 

the 25th of September, 1855, determined "that the repairs of the Public Works bt 



let by contract,' ' and they proceeded to give fifty days notice of the lettings, in 
the following papers : 

The Boston Post, Boston Courier Washington Union, National Intelligencer, 
United States Gazette, and Pennsylvanian, of Philadelphia, New York Evening 
Fost, Tribune and Daily News, Cleveland Plaindealer, Herald, and Leader, Ohio 
Statesman, State Journal, and Columbian, of Columbus, Ohio, Enquirer and 
Times, of Cincinnati, Toledo Republican and Toledo Blade. 

Preparatory to the lettings, the Public Works were divided into sections, as 
follows : 

First — The Ohio Canal from Cleveland to, and including the Walhonding Aque- 
duct and Lock, near Roscoe, and the Walhonding Canal, shall constitute Section 
Uumber One. 

Second — The Ohio Canal from the foot of the Walhonding Lock, near Roscoe, 
to the foot of the lower lock at Lockville, including the Dresden Side Cut, shall 
constitute Section Number Two. 

Third — The Ohio Canal from the foot of the lower lock at Lockville to the Ohio 
Kiver, shall constitute Section Number Three. 

Fourth — The Hocking Canal shall constitute Section Number Four. 

Fifth — The Muskingum Improvement shall constitute Section Number Five. 

Sixth — The Northern Division of the Miami and Erie Canal (originally the 
Wabash and Erie Canal) from the Lake to the Indiana State line, shall constitute 
Section Number Six. 

Seventh — The Miami and Erie Canal from the Junction to the Ohio River, shall 
constitute Section Number Seven. 

Eighth — The Western Reserve and Maumee Road shall constitute Section 
ITumber Eight. 

Complaints were made that the contracts were not awarded to the "lowest 
responsible bidder," as the law required, and we have sought to ascertain, from the 
best evidence within our reach, whether these complaints were well founded, or 
not. We will consider them by sections. 

SECTION NO. 1. 

The Ohio Canal from Cleveland to, and including the Walhonding Aqueduct, and 
loch near Roscoe, and the Walhonding Canal. 

This section was let to A.. Medbery & Co., at per year $27,500 

On this section there were the following lower bids : 

Myron H. Mills $21,000 

Peter Dunn 24,000 

William Miller 24,800 

Samuel Doyle & Co 24,985 

Nekon & Young . 26,400 

Joseph Cooper, Shaddinger & Co 27,300 

Here it will b* 3 seen, are six bids, all of them lower than the one upon which 
the contract was awarded. Myron H. Mills was the lowest bidder, and offered 
for security, T. G. Mills, of Cieveland, J. M. Hughes, do., J. Vernan, N. Y., and 
H. H. Mills, do. The bid of Mr. Mills was one of undoubted responsibility. Mr. 
Mills himself, is a man of "much experience" in managing works of this kind, and 
his securities were "worth in the neighborhood of $400,000." (See deposition of 
I. J. Richardson; deposition No. 1.) It appears, however, that his bid was reject- 
ed, because his securities lived out of the State. (See same deposition.) But 
$iis reason, which appears to have been given by Mr. Stedman, is not all true, 
and if it were, we are unable to see where the Board gets its authority for reject- 



ing the bid on that account ; but two of the securities resided in the city of Cleve- 
land, and from the testimony of Mr. Richardson, above referred to, they alone 
were responsible. 

We were unable to find any one who knew anything of Peter Dunn, and henee 
have nothing to say of his bid. 

William Miller bid on this section $24,800, and he testifies that he cons ; ders it 
quite sufficient to keep the section in repair ; and he also testifies that the securi- 
ties offered by him, to wit: 0. P. Hines, H. S. Knapp, William Treavitt, William 
D. Morgan, Asahel Chitenden, John Dawson, Jr., and Henry Miller, whose con- 
sent he had to use their names, are worth, in the aggregate, not less than 8150,- 
000, besides which he offered any additional security which might be required by 
the Board. Mr. Miller stands high in the community in which he lives, as a correet 
and energetic business man, and his bid certainly was all that the law required it 
to be, that is, responsible. He says in his deposition that Mr. Griswold, one of the 
Board, informed him that his securities were ample, and his reputation as a busi- 
ness man was all sufficient ; and he says that when he asked an explanation of Mr. 
Griswold, he " appeared rather confused, and gave me no definite answer." See 
deposition No. 2 — William Miller. 

Samuel Doyle & Co. bid $24,800 on this section. Samuel Doyle, Thomas Mil- 
ler, and Mr. Doyle, thinks Samuel G. Foster were the firm. Mr. Doyle is an old 
and experienced contractor, having been, ever since about 1824, engaged in vari- 
ous capacities on the canals. The responsibility of the firm cannot be doubted, 
and Mr. Doyle swears he considered the price a fair one, and that reasonable profits 
could be realized by doing the work at that price. He offered for security William 
Dickey, Samuel Galloway and Emanuel Cryder, and the testimony of Mr. Doyle is, 
that they were amply responsible, and that the bid was not objected to because of 
a want of responsibility or the insufficiency of the security. Thomas Miller testi- 
fies that the security offered by Doyle & Co. was worth, in the aggregate; $130,- 
000 — Dep. 15. Mr. Doyle asked for an explanation, why the contract was not 
awarded to them, and was told, he thinks, by Dr. Griswold, that they had got 
enough without this section, as they had got section three. See Dep. No. 2. 

It is needless to speak of the bids of Nelson & Young, and Cooper, Shaddinger 
& Co., both of which were lower than the bid of Medbery & Co., the contractors. 

The testimony appears to justify the conclusion that, on this section, $6,500 per 
year should have been saved by awarding the work to Mills. 

SECTION NO. 2. 

The Ohio Canal, from the foot of Walhonding Lock, near Roscoe, to the foot of the 
Lower Lock, at Lockville, including the Dresden Side- Cut. 

This section was let to Doyle & Miller, at, per year $22,980 

On this section M. H. Mills bid 20,000 

W. S. V. Prentiss bid 21,900 

" " Peter Dunn bid 22,000 

" " Cooper, Shaddinger & Co. bid 22,000 

As to the character of the bid of M. II. Mills, it is sufficient to refer to what is 
said in relation to his bid in section No. 1 . 

W. S. V. Prentiss offered as security C. J. Wetmore, of Worthington, M. 11. 
Mitchell, Eli Miller and J. K. Miller, of Mt. Vernon, and C. A. Weaver, of Newark, 
The testimony taken, shows that Mr. Prentiss is a prompt, efficient ami thorough 
business in. in, and of strict integrity, and that the securities offered were worth at 
least $150, UUO. See deposition No. 4 — Henry Miller's. The only reason we have 
been able to get, why this contract was not let to Prentiss, may be found in the 



6 

deposition of Wash'ngton McLean, connected with the fact, that at the time he bid, 
Prentiss was a clerk in the office of the Auditor of State. Mr. McLean says that 
subsequent to the lettings, he heard Mr. Steedman say that he did not think one 
branch of the government should dole out contracts to another branch of it, or 
give contracts to straw bidders, and he understood him to refer to State officers and 
their clerks. See deposition No. 27 — W. McLean's. 

The firm of Doyle & Miller who have this contract, consisted, at the time of 
the bid and award, of Samuel Doyle, Thomas Miller, and E. S. Hamlin, and Sam- 
uel G. Foster, and Lewis W. Sifford, both engineers in the employment of the 
State at the time, and Mr. Sifford had charge of a part of this section. See dep. 
No. 5 — Samuel Doyle s, and No. 6 — S. G. Foster's. In the proper place we shall 
say something about the propriety of the State's engineers being interested in bids. 

Mr. Hamlin, the attorney, as he swears, of the Board, sold his interest in this 
contract for $4,000. Mr. Foster sold for $4,500, and Mr. Sifford for $4,000. 

SECTION NO. 3. 
The Ohio Canal, from the foot of the Lower Lock, at Lockville, to the Ohio River. 
This section was let to Cooper, Shaddinger & Co. at $37,700 per year, which 
was the lowest bid. It was charged that Cooper, Shaddinger & Co., and Forrer, 
Bart & Co., were the same company, or at least that they were mutually interested 
in the bids put in by both companies. We were unable to discover any evidence 
of this, from a very thorough inquiry of those most likely to know. Joseph Cooper 
and Joseph Shaddinger constituted the firm of Cooper, Shaddinger & Co. Mr. 
Shaddinger's deposition gives a satisfactory explanation, as to how a firm, con- 
sisting of himself and Cooper, only, has the style of Cooper, Shaddinger & Co. 
See dep. No. 7. There was an understanding, as appears from the deposition of 
Cooper, that in case he and Shaddinger got enough of the works to justify it, 
Washington McLean was to be a partner ; but as they got only section 3, he never 
was a partner, or interested in any way in the contract. 

SECTION NO. 4. 

The Hocking Canal. 

This section was let on a bid offered in the name of Dennis McCarthy, 

at, per year $9,650 

On this section Henry Miller bid o 7,499 

Cooper, Shaddinger & Co. bid 8,000 

There were other bids on it below the price at which it is let, but that of Forrer, 
Bart & Co. was wih drawn, and it is not necessary to speak Of the other bids. 
The bid of McCarthy was originally $9,940, but it appears to have been modified 
after the bids were opened, so as to bring it within the average annual cost for the 
last six years preceding, as the law forbids the letting of any section above that 
sum. What authority the Board had for modifying this bid in this way we have 
not been able to discover. 

The persons interested in this bid were McCarthy, Doyle, S. G. Foster, the engi- 
neer in charge of it, and E. S. Hamlin, the attorney, as he swears, of the Board. 
Subsequently, Foster and Hamlin were bought out Hamlin got $1,000. See 
dep. No. 8 — Mc arthy 's, and Foster was to get $ 1 ,500. See dep. No. 6 — Foster's. 

Henry Miller's bid on this section, given above, was backed up by securities 
worth at least $60,000 (see dep. No. 9, also 15) and he himself was amply re- 
sponsible, and is stated by E. E. Shedd to be worth at least $30,000. See dep. 
No. 10. Yet it was let to Dennis McCarty. Samuel G. Foster, engineer in charge 
of it, E. S. Hamlin, and Samuel Doyle, at $2,151 per year more than his bid. It 



is but just, however, to say here that Mr. Foster testified that before any bid in 
which he was interested, was put in, he made out a resignation and banded it to 
Dr. Griswold, fully intending that it should take effect. It nowhere appears that 
Mr. Griswold ever made known the matter to the Board, or that they ever took 
any acti. n upon it, and it never took effect, and Foster sold out his interest and 
was continued in office. 

Henry Miller testifies, [see dep. No. 9,] that after the contract w r as entered into, 
Mr. Griswold said to him, that his bid was entirely responsible, but that the Board 
feared that he would lose money at the price bid, and that for that reason the bid 
was rejected. This reason is not assigned on the record of the Board, and we ven- 
tured to suggest that it is much more benevolent than lawful. 

Complaints of so serious a nature were made as to the management of this sec- 
tion, by the contractor and resident engineer, that we deemed it our duty to take 
some testimony in relation to it. Accordingly, one of the committee went to points 
on its line and made inquiry, and took some depositions. Mr. Crooks, collector at 
Logan, and Mr. Charles W. James, of the same place, testify to facts, [dep. No. 
12 and 13,] which are worthy of serious consideration. The statements of these 
two gentlemen, if true, and they are undoubtedly worthy of belief, make it quite 
manifest that the contractor has not done what he should have done, and that the 
State has lost considerably by his negligence. In connection with this testimony, 
we thought it our duty to give the contractor the benefits of the testimony ot the 
resident engineer, as he knew more, or ought to have known more, of the real facts 
of the matter, and, accordingly, we examined him, [dep. No. 33,] and he repre- 
sents the matter in quite a different light. It would appear, too, from the state- 
ments of Messrs. Crooks and James, that the resident engineer had not given the 
proper attention to this work, and he rather admits this himself in his deposition, 
[dep. No. 33, ) and justifies himself on the ground that more important services, the 
Muskingum Improvement, and the deepening and widening of the Lancaster side- 
eut, demanded his whole attention, 

SECTION NO. 5. 
The Muskingum Improvement. 
Let to Chamberlain and Paul at $25,000 per year. Their bid was $27,100, 
and was subsequently modified, by what authority we know not, nor by whose 
suggestion or procurement. Dr. Paul and Mr. Gilson both appear to be entirely 
ignorant on this point, and doubtless are so. It cannot be fairly claimed that this 
contract and that upon Section No. 4, were awarded npon bids at all. Cham- 
berlin and Paul put in no such bid as $25,000 ; nor did McCarty make any such 
bid as $9,650 on the Hocking canal. But as we will notice this matter in another 
place, we will drop it for the present. (See paragraph under the caption, "The 
Board making propositions to bidders.) 

The firm consisted of John Paul, R. H. Gilson, John Isham, Barney Becker, 
John D. Fay and Calvin T. Chamberlain. The following bids were lower than 
the contract price: 

E. E. Shedd S 1 8,999 

M. II. Mills 23,000 

I. J. Richardson j 1,000 

By reference to the testimony of E. E. Shedd. (No. 9.,) it will appear thai his 
securities were ample. They were Lorenzo English, Henry Miller, Prances Car- 
ter, S. M. Smith and A. S. Decker. Of M. 11. Mills and his securitii 
is said in connection with Section No. 1. 

I. J. Richardson's hid is one thousand dollars below the Contract price Hi 
is known to some of the Committee as a man of energy, integrity and undoubted 



8 

pecuniary ability, and his securities are known as the most ample. His depo- 
sition will show that he is a man of experience in the repairing and building of 
public works, and that his securities were worth about half a million of dollars. 

He says Mr. Steedman told him that he was informed by a person entitled to 
confidence, that he (Richardson,) was an experienced contractor, and that his 
own responsibility and that of his securities, was sufficient, (No. 10.) So here 
the board were not in the dark. They knew they were not awarding the con- 
tract to the lowest responsible bidder. 

The securities offered by Mr. Richardson, were, Hiram G. Andrews, J. C. Evans, 
M. D. Pettibone, G. W. Little, David H. Richardson, R. H. Rowland, Joseph R. 
Robinson, R. P. Maclay. 

SECTION NO. 6. 

The Northern Division of the Miami and Erie Canal from the Lake to the Indi- 
ana State Line. 

This section was let to Samuel M. Young, & Co., at per year ,832,000 

There were four lower bids, viz : 

John C. Allen, & Co. 24,000 

J. & W. Dickey, & Co 24,90® 

H. H. Forsyth 28,000 

J. M. Gloyd 30,000 

We invite special attention to the facts of this case. 

The testimony of Mr. Young, one of the contractors, and that of Mr. Backus, 
show that the bid of J. W. Dickey was withdrawn, on the condition that Young 
and company pay to Dickey, & Co., $4,000, and their testimony shows that this 
sum has since been, in part, paid. See Nos. 16 and 18. 

The deposition of Mr. Young also discloses the fact that the bids put in, in the 
names of John C. Allen, & Co., and H. H. Forsyth and J. M. Gloyd, were put 
in by him. 

Strange as it may seem, an effort made by Mr. Blickensderfer, to adopt a rule 
to prevent this kind of bidding, received no favor from the other members of the 
Board. By reference to their report, made to the Senate March 7, 1856, and 
which is published in the Public Documents of 1855, part first, page 642, the 
following proceedings will be found : 

Octobek 24, 1855. 

" Board met ; present, all the members. 

On the final adoption of the " Contract and Specifications," Mr. Blickensderfer 
moved to amend the specifications, by adding the following, as section No. 10 : 
Bidders, in submitting proposals, will be required to state the names, in full, and 
the residence of each and every person joining in any bid, or who expect to 
become interested in the contract." Lost. 

Yea — Mr. Blickensderfer. 

Nays — Messrs. Steedman and Griswold. 

Mr. Blickensderfer moved to strike out the words-, "Public Works of Ohio — Spe- 
cifications for repairs" — forming the caption of the specifications. Lost. 

Yea — Mr. Blickensderfer. 

Nats — Messrs. Steedman and Griswold. 

The question then being on the final adoption of the form of the contract and 
specifications ; it was adopted. 

Yeas — Messrs. Steedman and Griswold. 

Nay — Mr. Blickensderfer. 

The Board adjourned until the 13th day of November next." 

If this proposition of Mr. Blickensderfer had been adopted, this mode of bidding 



9 

Would have been prevented, and there would have been a fair competition ; but by 
refusing to adopt it, they invited bidders to practice just what was practiced in 
this case, and also on Section No. 8, which was awarded to J. J. Park's, (himself 
a bidder, in his own name,) on a bid put in for him in the name of Michael Hayes. 
[See report of Board to Senate, pub. doc. 1855, part 1, p. 6 18.] 

In their report for 1855, [Pub, Doc. 1855, part 1. p. 429,] the Board, explaining 
the principles on which they made the awards, say : 

" The Board, in considering the bids, exercised the discretion which the law 
contemplated and the public interest demanded, selected those propositions which 
contained all the elements of responsibility, experience, capacity, fitness for the 
trust, and undoubted pecuniary ability, and awarded the contracts as in their 
judgment would best promote the public interest." 

How the board was to find out, or how it did find out, which propositions con- 
tained all the good qualities which they name in this extract, when the majority 
had closed all the avenues of information, as to who composed the companies 
making the propositions, we are unable to tell. The case of Mr. Young's bids, 
illustrates very forcibly, the folly of the majority, in voting down the proposition 
to require all the names of persons interested, to accompany the bids. Here 
Samuel M. Young, is John C. Allen & Co. H. H. Forsyth and J. M. Gloyd, and 
he is one half of the firm of S. M. Young & Co ; and he is allowed to withdraw 
his bid of $24,000, which is in the name of John C. Allen & Co ; and in "select- 
ing such propositions as combine all the elements of responsibility, experience, 
capacity, fitness for the trust, and undoubted pecuniary ability," they do not find 
them in Mr. Young, alias H. H. Forsyth, at $28 000; nor yet in Mr. Young, alias 
J. M. Gloyd, at $30,000 ; but in S. M. Young & Co., at $32,000, a proposition is 
found, which combines all the fine qualeties which the Board appear to think it 
necessary for a man to have, to fit him to work on the canals of the State. 

The object of Mr. Young in bidding as he did, was to get the work any how, or 
as he has it, "he had before made up his mind that Mr. Backus (see 16) should 
not have it at any price." These bids were all written by Mr. Young, and 
although he says in his deposition, that he disguised his hand in two of them, the 
two he does not remember, (see 16) yet on an examination and comparison of 
them, we find he made a poor out of disguising it, though he attempted it, for 
they are all very much alike, so much so, that it is difficult to tell whether the 
undisguised look more like each other, than they do like the disguised ones. They 
are still on file in the office of the Board. 

The bids were opened on the 13th Nov., (see ex. docs., part 1. p. 464) and as 
soon as Mr. Young discovered that Backus was between Samuel M. Young <k Co., 
and Samuel M. Young as John C. Allen & Co., he proposed to buy out Mr. Back- 
us, and when he had accomplished this end, then the next ihing was for Mr. 
Young to withdraw himself, as John C. Allen & Co., and fall back upon his bids 
in the name of H. H. Forsyth, and J. M. Gloyd. Why he did not withdraw his 
Forsyth & Gloyd bids, when it would have been so easy for him to do it, as the 
board appeared to allow all to withdraw who desired, may appear strange at first 
view, but by reference to the testimony of Mr. Young, it will be seer, that Samuel 
M. Young & Co. consisted of himself and Elijah Dodd, a brother-in-law to Mr. 
Steedman, and by reference to the testimony of Mr. Dodd, [No. 17 | it will ho see n 
that Mr. Dodd had asked Mr. Steedman if a bid by himself and Mr. Young would 
be considered good, and he was told it would. And the result shows that it w as 
considered good, and was "selected" as one of the propositions which combined 
all the elements of responsibility, experience, capacity, fitness for the trust, and 
undoubted pecuniary ability. 



10 

AVERAGE COST. 

7 

las: six ye n, 

. .z , 

rage 
of B : r, 1856 t 1, p. 671.] On the 31 si 

II far and Mr. Conover, as the major::;. the I 

ftoa resolution giving the :::ils on whie 
irs b based, and 

I of the contractors one r.r 

t- ;:ric% 

•S_. 

Brisw nade a minority report action, in which fa 

571. Both the ~ith the reports in re: 

Bea i in all the sections, air copied in1 : 

~z r printed br: re - ijournmen:. i r contain 

sport 
re was lifferenee of opinion about :ion 

i Board ~r g - 3 parti ten i a 

distance Mr. Cyrus Howard. the pi 

who has been familiar 

e rime. From this examin n 
sport of the 
. and that the sostof si 

i8,C -. We s:a:e only the : 2 
w report to an un~ -_ :s. 

mud to repair, not to : . 

may fail, id of 

ire waf md any change oi plan, such as 

1st be 
2 . : re the contract pri< e a 

the . Ex. Doc. part 1, 18&£ 57S 1 iaa- 

Esh 
as be k years at an ex 

7 ~ot a rebuilding of a 

s stare — _:: tt ouilfc 

se whe wish to pursue this 1 :an 

the majority and mine -id to 

. a in a subsequent par: :: this :- d — Re 

_7 sontracts — Average bosL" 

SECTION IfO. 7. 
T ■ Erie G junction to ~ \ver, m 

Z : ■ : .: Co., at per year Si! : 

rhere were folk iraig lower bids : 

: ?: 981 ! 

Petit Alei 

J. AW. Dickey, Co 5S [ 

Erevi ; ,,..11 



11 

The securities of Joseph Cooper, Shaddinger & Co., were J. H. Gerard, H. P 

Bowman, Nat. Harris, S. B. W. McLean, E. M. Shield, James Beaty, Jus. Cooper, 

J. B. Riddle, L. D. Pendry, John Cooper, of Cincinnati, and such others as would 

^ satisfy the Board. The testimony is that they are worth at least a mil lion of dollars. 

[No. 20.] 

But it has been said that Mr. Cooper would not take this section alone at this 
price. Mr. Cooper's proposition plainly contradicts this allegation. It reads 
thus : 

" We, the undersigned, propose to keep in repair all or a portion of the public 
works, according to specifications as follows, per annum : 

Section No. 1 827,300 

" 2 22,000 

" 3 37,700 

" 4 8.000 

" 5 40,000 

" 6 33,500 

" 7... 81,000 

This proposition can bear no other construction only that he would do any 
sec ion at the price named. 

Petit, Alexander & Co. offered for security E. N. Martin, of Dephos, G. Volney 
Dorsy, of Piqua, J. E. Rudisill, of Columbus, J. L. Glover, and others if necessary. 
We have taken no testimony as to this bid, but it bears, like Cooper's, sufficient 
evidence on its face of its responsibility. The persons named "and others if neces- 
sary," certainly makes it a good bid. 

Trevitt & Knapp proposed A. Chittenden, Columbus, O. P. Hines, do., M. H. 
Mitchell, Mount Vernon, C.J. Wetmore. Worthington, W. S. V. Prentis. Columbus, 
W. D. Morgan, W. Miller and John Dawson, jr., Columbus, John Dawson, sen., 
Green county, Henry Miller, Columbus, A. P. Edgerton, Hicksville, T. C. Bush- 
nell, Ashland, Joseph Masgrave, do. We have taken no testimony as to the secu- 
rities here, as we deemed it useless to swell our report with unnecessary evidence. 

The firm of J. & W. Dickey & Co., which bid $99,900, must have been 
known to the Board, or at least to the President of it, to be responsible. The 
firm was composed of J Dickey, of Hamilton, and W. Dickey, of Dayton, and 
Samuel Doyle and A. L. Backus. The first three have been ever since 182 1-5 
engaged upon public works as contractors, &c, and the Dickeys are represented 
as men of large property, being worth from two to three hundred thousand dol- 
lars, and the security is represented to be worth from 8250, OuO to $300,000. 
Mr. Bachus has been an engineer for the State most of the time since 1838. By 
reference to the depositions of Samuel Doyle (No. 22) and A. L. Backus, (No. 
18,) it will be found that it would be very difficult to get up a firm that " com- 
bined all the elements of responsbility, experience, capacity, fitness for the trust, 
and undoubted pecuniary ability," to a greater degree than did this firm, ami yet 
they are jumped over without a word of explanation, and condemned as men unfit 
to be trusted to repair canals for the State. 

Samuel Forrer, John S. G. Burt, and John Howard originally constituted this 
firm (see No. 26) so far as Mr. Howard was aware. But it appears < ser V 
No. 20 and 21) that Forrer, Burt and Howard, each own only a sixth part o\ the 
contract. Mr. Hamlin has some sort of nondescript relation to it ; and as Forrer, 
Burt and Cooper (who has since bought out Howard) and Hamlin, are (he only 
persons interested in it (see No. 21 ), the other three-sixlhs are mixed up among 
them somehow, or else they are " lying around loose." lint see NoS. 20, I. 23 
and 26. Mi'. Hamlin was the attorney of this linn from its origin. See No. 20 
and No. 40. See also deposition of Samuel Forrer, No. ;>8. 



12 



In this connection the committee was very desirous to get the testimony of Mr. 
Burt on a personal examination before the committee, and they delayed taking it 
by letter, hoping that they would be able to see him in the State, or would get 
time to see him in Washington. But finding themselves unable to see him, they 
addressed interrogatories to him, and received answers under oath. (See No. 40.) 
It will be seen that he fails to answer as to who are now, or who have been, since 
the letting, interested in the contract ; and " presumes that it is a private matter 
with which the committee have nothing to do." We should have tried to get a 
different answer could we have got the deponent before us. 

SECTION NO. 8. 
The Western Reserve and Maumee Road. 

This was let to James J. Parks for per year 85,499 

On it there were the following lower bids : 

0. White c 83,750 

Ira Smith 4,000 

M. H. Mills 4,490 

About the bid of Ira Smith we have nothing to say. The bid of M. H. Mil]g 
was undoubtedly responsible. See No. 1. 

The bid of 0. White was withdrawn. Parks, the contractor, gave him 82,000 
to withdraw it. See No. 24-25. 

Parks put in a bid in his own name, and the contract was awarded to him on the 
bid of Michael Hays. 

RECAPITULATION. 

The following table exhibits, at a single view, the names of the contractors, the 
contract price, the name of the lowest responsible bidder — shown to be responsi- 
ble by accompanying testimony, and the sum bid by such lowest bidder : 



Number ' Contractor's Name. 
of Section 


1 
Contract 
Price. 


Lowest Responsible 
Bidder. 


Sum Bid. 


No. 1 . . A. Medbery & Co 

" 2.. Doyle & Miller 

" 3 . . Cooper, Shaddinger & Co. 

" 4.. Dennis McCarty 

" 5. . Chamberlain & Paul. . . . 


827,500 

22,980,' 

37,700 

9,650 

25 000 1 


Myron H. Mills 

Myron H. Mills 

(No lower bids) 

Henry Miller 


821,000 
20,000 
37,700 

7,499 
18,999 
24,000 
81,000 

3,750 


E. E. Shedd 


" 6. . Samuel M. Young & Co. 

" 7 . . Forrer, Burt & Co 

*' 8 . . James J. Parks 


32,000 

118,000 

5,499, 


John C. Allen & Co ... . 
Cooper, Shaddinger & Co 
0. White 

Totals 


Totals . . i 


8278. 329| 


8213,948 







Excess of < ntract price over lowest responsible bid, 864,381 per year. For 
five years the extent of the contracts, the excess will be 8321,905. 

As we have come to the conclusion that these lettings, except Section No. 3, 
were illegal, and that the Legislature, should promptly disaffirm them, we have 
deemed it our duty to lay before you such arguments and authorities touching the 



13 

question of their legality, as we find ourselves able to command. It would seem 
hardly just to ourselves to do otherwise. Perhaps, too, it is due to those who ap- 
pointed us, and to the people that we should do it. Certainly the magnitude of 
the interests involved entitled the subject to careful and full investigation. It is, 
go far as we know, the first time in the history of Ohio that it has been seriously 
proposed that the Legislature shall disaffirm the contracts of any of the officers of 
the State, and we feel it incumbent upon us, to give the reasons which justify, 
and, as we think, call for the action we propose. 

As we wish to give whatever of argument we may advance as close a connec- 
tion with the evidence and facts in the case, as practicable, we deem it proper to 
follow the statement of the facts, and testimony with what we have to say on the 
validity of the contracts, in order that all of our report which touches the ques- 
tion of legality may come in consecutively. 

Other matters will come in in such order as the nature of the subject appears 
to suggest. 

From the foregoing statement of the evidence and the facts bearing upon the 
following points we apprehend it will be conceded : 

1. That Section No. 6 was let at a price above the average annual cost for the 
last six years preceding the lettings : 

2. That the contractors on Section No. 6 agreed to pay $ 4,000 to secure the 
withdrawal of a responsible bid : 

3. That the contractor on Section No. 8 agreed to pay $2,000 to induce a 
responsible bidder to decline to take the contract : 

4. That if they had been let to the lowest bidder, they would have cost the 
State $64,381 a year less than the contract prices: 

5. That in several cases members of the Board knew, and admitted to different 
persons, that they had not let some of the sections to the lowest responsible 
bidder. 

6. That Sections 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, were not let to the lowest responsible 
bidder, unless the word responsible is extended in its signification to something 
more than mere pecuniary ability. 

These are the chief points developed by our inquiries which bear upon the 
validity of the existing contracts for repairs, and we shall now proceed to consider 
the question are these contracts legal. 

SECTIONS No. 6 & 8. 

We will first consider the questions which are peculiar to the contracts on Sections 
No. 6 and 8, and which grow out of the conduct of the bidders themselves. 

Here the testimony of the contractors themselves is, that they paid money to 
induce bidders to withdraw their bids. It is the policy of the law to encourage 
bidding, and any act of any bidder that has for its object the prevention of a free 
competition, is against public policy, and operates as a fraud on the State. The 
principle has been long and well established, with regard to sales at auctions, 
&c, that any combination to prevent bidding, or any act which has that tendency, 
on the part of a purchaser makes the sale absolutely void. Chancellor Kent 
says — " It will be a void sale if the purchaser prevails on the persons attending 
the sale to desist from bidding, by reason of suggestions, by way oi appeal to the 
sympathies, of the company." Kent, 2, 701, and cases there cited. " It has 
been decided," says Chitty, " that if a purchaser, by unfair conduct, deter others 
from bidding at a sale, and cause the goods to be knocked down to himself, he 
does not acquire any property therein." Chitty's contract?:. 267, and oases cited 
in note. 

The principle of these authorities so elVcctually disposes of these two contracts, 



:-. 



-i: :- _ll,:- :■: lif :_-_?z:c - : : .. : :- l - - :: i_- _--- e- - C. 
imtmm Void. oa tin grand, aad doali be s* treated fey the GeaeraliUseLi 

Inhere is aaother u a i i iim waaacwd watfe these iwossciMHiffi, grawias; «ssi <xf ike 
ok art of the eaataasiors, to which we de« it prefer 30 fall afflferaaai If it 
iii 1 rri: : -_r : .- l. ;f :: :i-s T :~: " j :l: ill- :.: :•--,_- ml; 

Seao®* > 1 6 weald haire beea awarded toJiW. Ifc^T A Cou_ at £?4j9U*. 

Te piPt^iLiDr otherwne, raid be la tabs it for graaied, that tie b s*ard weald aot 

lave (done taear daty. TheSaaiSe woeMtibt»i»w^tfce*sa^3omiE*i»r^J<» 
; r r- :•-; -- : ::i.: ll~ :-: : 1 : :: 7 11 _ _■ _.i :: ;= 11: :lt lli l:l-.- ; : : 

lire Si . 'h** seat back ax- lire Tt?ar 185$, sad a jprDpara-: cli- aaseawi :'•:•*■ 

li - . - • ■ : : :ir :l 1 f zl_- Li~- :: llit r 1: ~ : . l:il : ; E:-:,:.: :■;: 1 : 
fppzi _r :cz his wrosgral act. We hare aot sad tiare a> » .n luwiiw tfcas <qas* .1: 1 1 
a Saw c "fi£=Ek -2:. aad heat ap aanorities, bat ©erssaaly the wrmwfra* jasoee of ibe 



■ .. - LiLT r i; _;:' T :; 

ramtheaaraeef Jehad. Aflem «V Ob^ sad wi^drawa by Manetf. _ii^ he lid 
bdiawal off dre bid off J- at W. Ifcaaey & On. — as. if this be so, 

be sfeoafci have bai $24£«W a year. 

T^tf* saare leasaaai^ appfied to Se^tkm IS •:•_ S. weald ofiSsle tfee ecafzaeier la 
- d-j, dae seat bat by O wTfcae. 
• isii-t t>.tt.^ k c&ear : that is. »*■**«■ of these coatracaas got thea* c o-Hii ar n* __ a 
- - :» hare aay dsnat apoa the &a&e, by vatae rf the cseetraess made by tbe 
_. *:—_._ --- E-t:t :.ll?l:l l= ~- _-.-- ,. r^L-rt -- _ : ~i t: :i.": --'t 
obuniwuirl ei sack a way, that they woe abaoraieSy aad ataerly read from ibe be- 
ghamj Ti* eoadacfi off iht baldess was rack as a» temc« botb si r eoatrarts. 
Tber do aot s^ad tbeai ia dreagbtof vtm&i u Jk** , who bane a legal or eaaiiafcAe 
cbaa oa t^e Siatte, aa- a $&$n$atiei ssm : aor, iadeed, air aay saasL dirkaihr raeak- 

i. _■ ; _--_:-t:-i:t t :-:~.tL ._- - 1- :::i_ ~ / _i; r-i-.-ri 

"r^i-i -r :tt --- Lit 1-.. .-.--; t ~_ ::■; _- / > ' ; .- " .. - _. ~. -■ :_t - : t 
k r^asoaablj worth. Qa the p&aaest prnc^aka off jastice, thss fe sffl they aae ea- 
tSLk-d Ilu or saoaH have^ Ii wiD aot atreMgtfoga the oppose paarx-B aay 1 

, betweea xwo ooaraeaeat parses, ft— li d oa a rwSrww t eofiai*T«6cff: : aad if 

^ere be fraad oa either sUe, the agreeareat; k a aaAy. A s^palaaiaB at a rad 

i-s st^palataoa. IF these area had ®oae oa aad readied serdee, 

■ •: :it E ,-'-. -_. :_ v_i rrM^i 17 1 :". - u-i - - :l:l: ll~ ::rLi.r 

: : 1 :- : - - l t 1 ■ i - - . - _ . t : • ' : - -. ~ - : " . 1 - ■*-- :-' - ~ - - ;i: . : 11.7 : r 

rl T : : -_ -it r-:~ :-'; T i: T ; T : - -,.; ; T : 1 . : .; _.i :-; -±_-_ - T - 

whou by &ad aaaia towards the Stale, hare obtaared a wralea afir^erarat of the 

£r_i-.- : . - - • ~ '-'- " • - - i' :— ' - ^ =" -■ " - - - - - "--' - - " - " - i- : l l : ll 

: l_ 1: - : - lli li 1 1- ; iLLi t:: el: l1. iriir: _t Eiiit .-■-_:- - ;r> 
eBTjgesiat aay of ife ageaa^, wjghaamsapaliiflaig she iearaaeraa_gL If he who 
"-_ : .: - - 1 1 : t - - : 1 : ": V l 11E7 ; l?l k l:ill - 1- - _ . l_ : - :.— 1 . : ~ i 
^f.,— -::•- _ - _ 1 ^r?7 :::: ei:v :: :-: : :i 

; _- ; - ■ . : - . ■ • _ - -. .:_:_:'_:-■_ ' - - t — ii 

boeatMSid l&; wakli grows oat of the acaioa of the Board, at idhaiaa 1 

:eei z :±zz il^z::: :-::::::::::/■:::::::; 



I_: :'t_- :: yii:c.': : i iL: :i l: l .:-:l ::i;fr= - ; E1:- 
:"E : 11 _ :iIll:-:E-i l E -1 : : 1: :l :: $i" 1 . :: ~- i^i::r: :: li 1: 

. __t lli> ::l :: 7. l. _ :: 



1-5 

$9,(387, and it was awarded to Dennis McCarty at 89,650, while his bid was 89 - 
940. These bids being without the rule laid down in the law, it seems plain to 
us they could not properly be considered as bids at all, and more especially as 
bids competing with those responsible bids which were put in on these two sec- 
tions, which came within the average cost for six years. But still, Chamberlain 
& Paul, and McCarty, got these two sections, on these bids, for they put in no 
others. This looks strange, and it is strange, and would be very hard to account 
for, if the board had not so fully informed us, in the extract from their report so 
often alluded to in this report, that they assumed almost unlimited discretion. ' 

By reference to the testimony of McCarty, [JS T o. 8,] it will be found that he was 
told, after the bids were opened, by some one, that if he would so modify his pro- 
portion as to bring it within the average cost for six years, he could o-et the con- 
tract. He says he did so modify it, but it must have been a verbal modification 
for the bid as now on file, in the office of the Board, is the same as that first nut 
in. He does not remember who told him this. " 

R. H. Gilson, in his deposition, says, [No. 29,] that he knows nothing about 
how Chamberlain, Paul & Co., came to get Section No. 5, only what he was told 
by fylr. Chamberlain, who came to him, after the bids were opened, and told him 
that they [C, P. & Co,,] could get No, 5, if ihey would do it for 825,000. How 
could McCarty and Chamberlain learn that they could get these contracts unless 
they got the information from the Board? No one else beside them knew cer- 
tainly, that they could get these contracts, until the Board told some one that thev 
could. There can be no other explanation made that will at all coincide with all 
the circumstances. 

This is, perhaps, the most extraordinary act in these most extraordinary 
ceedings. Two biddei's, whose propositions are entirely outside of the law be- 
cause too high — that is, above the average, are given to understand that the 
can have the work at prices suggested, and, evidently, suggested by some one of 
the Board, for no one else bat a member of the board could know that, after the 
time of bidding was passed, and all the bids opened, the Board would then onen 
lettings.in private, and would give one contract if taken at 825,000, and the other 
if taken below the average ; the one by Chamberlain & Paul, and the other bv 
McCarty. Thus going through the forms of a public letting, and then letting it 
be understood, somehow, that these tvvo contracts could be had by certain ner 
sons, if their private terms were accepted; thus letting them, not on propositions 
made by bidders in the regular and lawful way, but on propositions made bv 
themselves, to persons, and accepted by them. ^ 

Section No. 8 was awarded, on the 14th, to 0. White, and on the 28th tl 
Board was notified that Mr. White declined to execute the contract, and thev the 
proceeded to let it to J. J. Parks, on the bid of Michael Hays, which it an 
was put in for him. Here again making, as we conceive, a mockery o( the 
ality of receiving bids, and letting the contract without competition, at a Drivi ta 
letting, on the 28th of November, fourteen days after the public lettin'gs had close 1 
If they could let these contracts thus privately, fourteen days after the puolic ! iU 
tings h ul closed, they could just as well have let all the sections so; and if thev 
might do it fourteen days after the public lettings, they mighl just as well in a 
le^al point of view, have done it fourteen weeks, or fourteen months, after It 
will certainly need no further argument, to show that the letting of this oo] 
was not according to law. 

SECTIONS NOT LET TO LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDERS. 

Tin heretofore shown, only one section let (o the lowest bidder 

wit: Section No. 3. The Board tells us that the law oontemplal 



16 

ercised a discretion in making the awards, and "selected those propositions which 
combined all the elements of responsibility, experience, capacity and fitness for the 
trust, and undoubted pecuniary ability." 

We deny that the law contemplated any such discretion, and affirm, that, in ex- 
ercising such a discretion, the Board assumed powers not delegated to them, and 
that having transcended their powers, their action is null and void. And we now 
proceed to consider the questions here presented : First. Has the Board acted 
according to law? Second. If they have not acted according to law, is their 
action bindino- on the State ? We again quote the law under which the Board let 
the repairs : 

Sec. 5. That whenever, in the opinion of the Board, it will be for the public 
interest, to let by contract the keeping in repair of all, or any portion of the Public 
Works, except the National Road, said Board may divide any portion of the same 
into suitable ana convenient sections ; and, thereupon, said Board shall give due 
notice of the time and place of letting for said repairs, with the plans and specifi- 
cations of said repairs, and the manner of doing the same ; and the said Board 
shall let the same by sections, to the lowest responsible bidder, for any term of 
years not exceeding five, upon condition that the bidder or bidders shall make, 
execute, and deliver to said Board, a bond, with security, to be approved by said 
Board, in any sum not less than double the amount of the contract price, payable 
to the State of Ohio, conditioned for the faithful performance of said contract, and 
upon such other terms and conditions as said Board may determine : Provided, 
That said Board shall in no case let by contract the keeping in repair of the Public 
Works or any portion thereof, by sections as aforesaid, unless the same can be 
done at a price less than the average price of keeping the same in repair for the 
last six years : Provided, further, that in making appointments of officers or agents, 
the lettino- of contracts to individuals or companies, fixing the salaries of agents, 
eno"ineers° clerks, or other servants of the Board, not otherwise provided by law, 
or In rnakino* extra allowances on any contract to an amount exceeding fifty dollars, 
the order shall be made by yeas and nays, and entered of record in the books of 

It will be seen that they are empowered " whenever in the opinion of said Board, 
it will be for the public interest" to let the repairs by contract. Under this law, 
the Board had a discretion as to when they would let them, but it is very explicit 
in directino- them how they shall do it, and upon what conditions. Now, who will 
claim thatlhey may disobey one of these directions, or disregard one of these con- 
ditions ? Let him who says they may do it, and that the State is still bound by 
their action, put his finger on the provision which they are not bound to follow. 
Will he sav that they need not " give due notice of the time and place of the let- 
tines ?" the object of the notice is to let people know that the repairs are to be 
let & in order to invite competition. The object of the law is to promote the 
« public interest," and the most likely way to do that is to give " due notice," in 
order that men skilled in such business, and who would be likely to bid, might be 
informed of the time and place of letting, and might have time to inform them- 
selves as to the character and former cost of the work. It would hardly be claimed 
that they could dispense with " due notice," for, unless it were given, there would 
be no competition, and the "public interest " would not be likely to be promoted, 
and thus the very object of the law might be lost. Then, if they may not disre- 
gard the provision requiring "due notice," after they had given the notice, and 
secured" bids from a ''large number of responsible and competentpersons," may 
they disregard the condition imposed upon them by the proviso, viz : " that said 
Board shall in no case let by contract the keeping in repair of the Public Works, 



17 

or any portion of them, by sections as aforesaid, unless the same can be done at a 
price less than the average cost of keeping the same in repair for the last six years." 
And may they let any portion by sections as aforesaid, at double the cost of keep- 
ing the same in repair for six years, and still bind the State ? This conclusion is 
too manifestly wrong to be tolerated. Then, if the Board can not let any portion 
at a price double the average cost thereof for the last six years, and bind the State, 
can they let at a price at all above the average cost for six yoars ? To say they 
may let any portion at a price above the average cost for six years, is to assert a 
principle which will sustain the proposition that they may let them at a cost double, 
or even quadruple, and without limit, above the average cost for six years. The 
fact is satisfactorily established that section No. 6 was let at a price largely above 
the average cost for the last six years, and the contract can not be binding on the 
State, because the State never consented to be bound to pay more than the repairs 
on the same section cost under the system of repairs which preceded the contract 
system. To hold that the agents of the State may bind it to pay some thousands 
of dollars on this section above what the same section cost under the old system of 
repairs, when the State employed, by its agents, hands and superintendents, and 
by them made the repairs, would lead to so many absurd and dangerous conclu- 
sions that it can not be entertained for <* moment. As before stated, the object of 
this law was to promote the public interest —it could not promote the public in- 
terest to adopt a new mode of repairs, which would cost more than the old mode 
— [unless it can be shown that the more it costs to keep the public works in repair, 
the better for the people] — and hence the General Assembly imposed this condition 
on the Board ; and now, if the Board may disregard it, where is the use of any 
legislative restrictions on their conduct? Where is there any security to the 
people, who bear the expenses of government, if their will, as expressed through 
their representatives in the General Assembly, may be disregarded ? Is their 
authority to be contemned on every frivolous pretext ? Will it do to say, that, if 
the Board acted without fraud, their action is binding, when the result of that 
action is to increase the burdens of the people ? If this be so, there can be no limit 
to the amount of taxation which the people may be made to bear, through the un- 
authorized acts of their agents ; for if they may in this way saddle upon the people, 
taxes to the amount of five thousand dollars, why not to the extent of five millions ? 

Now, if the Board of Public Works may not disobey the provisions of this law, 
which requires them to give due notice, and to let no portion of the Works at a 
price above the average cost of keeping the same in repair for the last six years, 
may they disregard that provision which, in imperative language, says, " Said 
Board shall let the same by sections to the lowest responsible bidders." 

The consequences which would follow this assumption are as absurd as those 
which we have shown would follow the assumption that either of the other provis- 
ions named might be disregarded. If the Board is not bound to let the contracts 
to the lowest responsible bidder, but may adopt some other standard by which to 
make the awards, then the provision is nugatory, and they may let to the highest 
bidder, or to a bidder not responsible, and thus the object of the law, which, as 
before stated, is to promote the public interest, would be as effectually defeated as 
if they should not give due notice, or should let at prices above the average cost 
for the last six years. It would be no answer, to say that, in the case before us, 
the Board so let the Public Works as to effect a saving of a few thousand 
dollars, annually, as compared with the expenses of keeping them in repair under 
the old system. It is the duty of the government to save money, whenever it can 
be done legitimately, and not to save it when it can, is no better than squandering 
it. If these contracts have been so let as to cost the State $64 381 more, a year, 
than they need cost it, as the facts and evidence, we think, conclusively show, 

2 RKIV JOINT COM. FUB WORKS. 



18 

then the tax-payers of the State are to that extent bearing a burden which should 
never have been imposed upon them ; and if the Board of Public Works may, by 
disregarding this provision of the law, fasten upon them this amount of needless tax- 
ation, where is the limit to their power ? Thus we are again brought to the con- 
clusion, that, it the Board of Public Works might disregard that provision of the 
law, requiring the contracts to be let to the lowest responsible bidder, that they 
might make that law, which was designed by the General Assembly to be for the 
public benefit, an instrument of oppression to the people, and to say that they may 
so pervert the law from its purpose, is to say that they are not subordinate to the 
supreme legislative power, and that, though the Constitution itself [Art. 8 : Sec. 13] 
says they shall manage the Public Works according to such laws as are now, [at 
the time of its adoption,] or may hereafter be in force in relation thereto ; still they 
need not do it, thus putting them above and beyond the reach of the laws and the 
Constitution, and making them, during their term of office, unaccountable and 
supreme ; their action subject to no supervision, control or review, and the General 
Assembly bound to tax the people, and hand out the money to meet whatever en- 
gagements they may make. 

So monstrous are the conclusions which follow the assumption that the board is 
not bound to follow the direction given in the law to let the contracts to the lowest 
responsible bidder, and that no one, we apprehend, will be found reckless enough 
to make, or to defend the assumption. It will be conceded, we piesume, without 
further argument, that if the board did violate this provision of the law, their action 
is illegal, and consequently void, unless the State has since legalized it. 

This brings us to the real issue : Was this provision of the law broken or not f 
We affirm our conviction that it was. The board and their apologists and defend- 
ers say it was not ; that as to this point the law contemplated, and the puclic in- 
terest demanded, that the board should exercise a discretion, and now let us see. 
The first step in this inquiry is — what is the law? We have twice quoted it al- 
ready, and have arrived at the conclusion that if the board disobeyed any of its 
provisions, the contracts under consideration are not binding on the State. We 
have not, however, examined it critically, with a view to ascertain what is the true 
intent and scope of its provisions. This we shall now do, bringing to our aid 
such established rules of interpretation and construction as are applicable in de- 
termining the meaning of statutes. We shall do this with particular reference to 
that provision of the statute which is in these words : "Said board shall let the 
same by sections to the lowest responsible bidder.' * It is this provision which the 
Board say contemplated the exercise of discretion. 

"The fairest and most rational method," says Blackstone, "to interpret the will 
of the Legislature is by exploring its intentions at the time the law was made, by 
signs the most natural and probable. And these signs are either the words, the 
eontext, the subject matter, the effects and consequences, or the spirit and reason 
of them all." Wendell's Blackstone, vol. i., § 59-60 ; Burget's Lesee v.; Burget 
i.; Ohio 469,480. Measured by this rule, what is the law before us ? The inten- 
tion of the Legislature was to promote the public interest, and they empowered the 
Board "whenever iD the opinion of said Board it will be for the public interest, to 
let," &c. To accomplish this end, it was deemed advisable by the Legislature, 
when the Board had decided that it was for the public interest to let them, that 
they, the Legislature, take it upon themselves to direct the mode of proceeding in 
order to produce the result desired. They directed, as a part of the means to the 
end in view, that notice should be given, in order that all might know of the let- 
tings, and of the time and place, and that all who desired to might bid. It can 
not be presumed for a moment, that the Legislature, representing a people, one of 
{he cardinal principles of whose constitution is, that "Government is instituted for 



19 

the equal protection and benefit of the people," intended to invite some to bid, 
and not others, and intended to allow the Board of Public Works to award con- 
tracts to some and not to others, unless they said so in the law ; and if in the law 
the Legislature fixed any disqualifications, they must be such as grow out of the 
very nature and necessities of the case, and such, too, as harmonize with the 
principles and aims of the Constitution, and the disqualifications fixed by the Leg- 
islature; and they alone, should debar any man from bidding or contracting ; and 
for the Board of Public Works to fix others would be nothing short of usurpation* 

The Legislature, though it fixed no qualifications for bidders, allowing all to 
bid, did nevertheless fix a standard of qualification for contractors. Its object 
being, let it be born in mind, to promote the public good, and as to let contracts 
to irresponsible bidders might defeat the object of the law, the Legislature directed 
the Board to let the contracts to responsible bidders, and this direction carries with 
it, as a necessary implication, the direction that they should not let contracts to 
bidders not responsible. This is all the qualification required by the law, and all 
the disqualification imposed by it. Now what is a responsible bidder. 

Here we must seek the meaning of the law from the words used in it by the 
Legislature. 

"Words are generally to be understood/' says Blackstone, "in their usual and 
most known signification ; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar as 
their popular use." Wend. Black, vol. I. § 59, 60. Kent 1, 511. Statutes are 
to be read according to the natural, ordinary, and grammatical sense of the 
words, unless that interpretation leads to plain and clear contradiction of the 
apparent purpose of the act, or to some palpable and evident absurdity." Attor- 
ney General v. Lnckwood & Mason <£ Wellsby, 308; Smth v. Bell, 10 Mason <k 
Wellsby, 339; the Sussex peerage case, 8 Jurist, 795. In Edrick's case the judges 
said, " that they ought not to make any construction against the express letter of 
the statute ; for nothing can so express the meaning of the makers of an act as 
their own express words." Wend, Black, § 60 note 12. 

Having determined, by authority, that words are used in statutes in their 
"usual and most known signification" — in their "popular use;" — or, in other 
words, that " statutes are to be read according to the natural, ordinary, and 
grammatical sense of the words " — the next step is to determine what is the most 
known signification — what is the natural, ordinary, and grammatical sense, in it* 
popular use, of the word responsible; — for the meaning of this word determines 
this controversy, except so far as it is determined by the acts and admissions 
of the Board, independent of the meaning of this word ; or rather, if it be found 
to mean what is claimed by them, and gives them the discretion which they admit 
they exercised, in awarding the contracts. Johnson defines responsible thus — 
" answerable, accountable. Capable of discharging an obligation." 

Webster defines it — " Liable to account, accountable, answerable, as for a trust 
reposed or for a debt. The security is responsible for the debt of his principal. 
Able to discharge an obligation; or having estate adequate to the payment of a 
debt. In taking bail the officer will ascertain whether the proposed security is a 
responsible man." 

The London Encyclopedia, or universal dictionary of Science, Art, Literature, 
Ac, defines it thus — "Responsible is answerable, accountable; capable of giving 
satisfaction ; pecuniarily competent : andt his example from Locke is given — " (he 
necessity of a proportion of money to trade depends on money as a pledge which 
writing cannot supply the place of ; since the bill I received from one man will not 
be accepted as security by another, he not knowing that the bill is legal, or that 
the man is honest or responsible" 

These authorities all show that the " natural, ordinary " and " most known 
signification" in its "popular use" of the word responsible is pecuniary ability; and 



20 



thus .:'- by :-.:'.:'- ::::ies which command onr assent, and silence, the 

! of cavil., what perhaps was sufficiently raanifesl without either authority or 
arcrument; for the popular usage I this as its " most known signification,** 

moag the illiterate. But we have not omitted it bee iuiy 

it is to argue a question of the magnitude of the one now being : ; i have 

no right to omit anything that may aid in arriving at the tru:h. 

Now, iii the Board of Public Works regard this word as meaning what all 
those unquestioned authorities, together with the populai usage i -i-~ ifl wnifyl 
Or did they assume to give it another, and an unusual, unnatural and extraor- 
dinary meaning — totally lisregardmg its most known ttgn- 
ueationl Lett] ironi officers answer these qiierf 

In their report on the condition of the public works, and their own doings in 
relation thereto, ma le :: the genera] assembly far the year 1855, (Ex. Doc. part 
1, r i the role by which they adjudged We 

here quote it : 

u Proposals were. offered by a large numbei :. experienced, competent and 
responsible persons. The Board, in considering the bids, exercised the liscretion 
which the law contemplated and the public interest dem = i:^:, ::-: 
propositions which contained all the elements of responsibility, experience, :■?-: : ::'.y. 
fitness for the trust, and undoubted pecuniary ability, and awarded the contracts 
as in i : -- judgment would bes: promo:- the publi : :ti:-r:cs:. ? ' 

Jhc paragi iph is written with all the frankness of honest truth, and all the 
boldness of conscious rectitude ; and we are disarmed of our suspicions., and the 
venues to our :::::ri:: are taken possession of by professions of .: the 

law. and an anxious solicitude Eoi die public good; and the mind i at 

fa$\ :: the charge that men who say they have been "actuated and controlled in 
c" they have lone by such high xmsiderations as reverence for the lai 
patriotic : mean fox :iir public good" — have neither promoted ".:: public intei 
to the extent within their power, nor obeyed the law. A little cool reflection, and 
patient enquiry, will enable us to see whether this paragraph, so full of high 
Bonn Jing words about the demands of the public interest, and the discretion con- 
templated by he law is true, or whethei i: is the bravado of men conscious of 
made a blunder or committed a wrong, and by blustering about important 
pubMe services rendered, or an audacious affectation of good intentions to blind 
the eyes ::' suspicion, and silence the voice of inquiry; and thus to ward off the 
shafts of truth, and shield themselves from censure. 

A brief analysis :■: this extract from the report of the Board will enable us to 
letermine if, in awarding the contra::?, they adopted any other rule than that 
laid down in the law. We have seen that the law required the contracts should 
' : _ [ e f be the lowest bidder having the requisite pecuniary ability, and giving the 
r _ fcy. The Board tells us in this extract from the annual report thai 

"proposals were made by a lar^e number of experienced, compete] pon- 

■ible bidders," and in their special report to the Senate, -i ioc. 1855, part 1, 
646, ) they teD us thai there ~r:r sixty-six proposals which were, on "inspection," 
■• |ef Leieut" and registered. Four proposals were rejected because 

deemed insufficient 

As :t contains matters of importance and interest in the dete :f the 

questions before as we here quote from the minutes of the Board the paragraph 

K BovKuni 13, 1855. 

The proposals for keeping the public works of Ohio in repair for Bve years, 
from and after the loth day of November, 1855, were opened and registered. 
Mr. Steedman, President of the Board, opened them, and, in each instance, pro- 



21 

nounced the number of the section proposed for, the bidder's name, or names, and 
the contract price proposed for doing the work, who then immediately handed 
them to Commissioner Griswold or Blickensderfer. both of whom inspected said 
proposals, ami each proposal which was deemed sufficient was forthwith registered 
by the Secretary of the Board, as it was read, or pronounced by the President, or 
one of the other members of the Board. 
Sixty -six proposals were thus registered. 

Four proposals were not registered because they were not deemed sufficient. " 
Now, in these sixty-six proposals which were deemed sufficient, are included 
all those propositions which we have shown by accompanying testimony to be 
responsible, and which are lower than those to which the contracts were awarded : 
as the bids of M. H. Mills, on sections 1 and 2 — the lowest on these two sections; 
that of Henry Miller, the lowest on section 4 ; that of E. E. Shedd, the lowest 
on section 5 ; that of John C. Allen, & Co., lowest on section 6 ; that of Cooper 
Shadinger, & Co.. the lowest on section 7 ; that of 0. White, lowest on 
section 8. These bids must have been included in the sixty six deemed sufficient, 
for without them there are not sixty-six propositions, and with them there are 
exactly s xty-six. See same document from page 648 to 669. 

What is a sufficient proposal ? Plainly, one which meets the forms and inten- 
tions of the jaw. One equal to the end proposed; adequate to the demands of 
the case, having the necessary pecuniary ability, responsible, and accompanied by 
"the names of the persons who were to become the securities for the performance 
of the contracts," as required by the law, and the notice of the Board. And 
every one of these sixty-six bids proposed the names of securities, and in determin- 
ing whether the proposals were sufficient or not, the Board had all these names, 
and doubtless considered them in connection with the bidder's proposition, and 
with these lights before them, they pronounced them sufficient. And for what 
were they deemed sufficient? For the purpose for which they were intended, 
certainly; for nothing else; and that was to secure the ''faithful performance of 
said contract," in case one was awarded to the bidder. If they were sufficient 
for this purpose, then were they all that the law required, and" the Board was 
right in deeming them what the accompanying testimony shows them to have 
been — that is, sufficient, responsible, adequate to the demands of the case, enough 
resposible. If they were not, then they should have been rejected because of 
their insufficiency. Having determined that sixty-six bids were what the law 
required, it would seem that their duty was plain and simple, and that they should 
have gone on and let the contracts to those bidders, whose proposals were the 
lowest, on the respective sections. This is a common-sense view of the m 
and it was just what "very bidder supposed, and had a right to expect would be 
done. 

But after they had got a large number of sufficient proposals, from experienced, 
competent, and responsible persons, they appear to have gone to eommderia%g that 
"the law contemplated a discretion," and that the "public interest demanded" 
that they should "exercise" it — for of what use was it if not e.v I'hev 

■ex? resolved "responsibility" into all of its "element," and continuing the ei 
of discreti n from the annals of canaling. they determined who had experi< 
and who had not; and still exercising discretion, they take up the soak and 
in- 1 1 ] . • rapacities of these sixty-six BUfficient bidders, "according to gunter;" 

ani still exercising discretion* thev dive into the labyrinthian question 

for the trust," and sftef exploring it, and determining who of r \ tit, 

sufficient, responsible bidden, is tit for the trust, 

their judgement would best promote the public good*" 



22 

The rule laid down in the law for awarding the contracts, is reasonable., sound, 
jus:, and simple in practice, while that adopted by the Board is complex, unrea- 
sonable, unjust, and involved in endless difficulties in its administration. The 
Legislature was content with a single requirement, the object of which was to 
secure the performance of the contracts. To secure the State against loss, it was 
necessary that the contractor should be pecuniarily responsible, and should iive 
good security, so as to furnish a guaranty of faithfulness, and indemnity in case of 
unfaithfulness. Pecuniary ability was all that the law demanded, and it is a thing 
tangible, real, and easily ascertained ; while the "elements of res: " and 

while "experience, capacity, and fitness for the trust," are qualities so impalpa- 
ble — so easily over-estimated when found — so otten seen where they do Dot exist, 
that they may be made to dance before the imagination at the will of him who 
seeks them. 

If the contractors had not skill and experience, their capital would enable them 
to employ them. The contractors, for instance, on section No. 7, could h 
secured the skill and experience of Mr. Forrer, by a sufficient salary — for much 
less than was paid for them by the State, for this contract appears to have been 
awarded to Forrer, Burt i: Co., on the grounds of the " experience, capacity and 
fitness : v r '.he trust/' of Mr. Forrer. Cooper bid on this structure, $81,< 00, and 
it was let :: a " selected " proposition at 8118,000 — a difference of 837,000 an- 
nually. We venture the assertion that Mr. Forrer's services could have been 
secured for a less sum. 

Ferrer, Burt d: Co., now have five-sixths of Mr. Forrer's skill and experience 
hired at a salary, (see N. 38,) and the other sixih goes into the service of the 
State because he owns one-sixth of this contract, and it is very reasonable to sup- 
pose that the ::her sixth could have been got by a company for a sufficient remu- 
neration. 

Again Cooper, who appears to have been deemed unfit for so responsible a trust 
as manag : ng No. 7, was deemed by Forrer <k Co. a man of so much skill and 
ability in the management of such works, that they induced him to buy an interest 
in section 7. in order to avail themselves of his services in the management of it; 
and thus Cooper, condemned by the Board, is endorsed by those whom the Board 
■elected and approved. 

But the contracts themselves show that all this talk about " experience capacity, 
and fitness for the trust" in the contractors, means nothing. The following is an 
extract from one of these contracts, (Ex. Doc. 1S55, part 1, pp. 643, 644,) and 
each of them has in it the same, or a similar provision : 

■■ 2. If, in case of a break or other casuality, the contractor does not imme- 
diately rroceed to repair the same, or if in the opinion of the resident engineer or 
■ding commissioner in charge, the force employed is not sufficient to insure the 
prosecution of the work, or in case of delays, arising in the progress of the work 
at any time, either from neglect or inability on the part of the contractor which 
may retard the opening of the canal, or in any manner embarrass or interfere with 
on, the acting commissioner or resident engineer may employ such force, 
purchase such tools and materials, and perform such work as he may deem neces- 
sary to secure a speedy restoration of navigation, and all expenses incurred shall 
be paid by said Commissioner and deducted from the next monthly payment to 
laid contractor." 

" 8. "Whenever the repairs on any section are notpromptly and properly made, 
or unsuitable materials are used, or the navigation is not properly kept up free 
from obstructions, or the feeders and dams are neglected, so that there is not fur- 
■nhed a regular and sufficient supply of water for navigation, and for such hy- 
draiii: ■:■ works as the State is bound to supply, or for any other failure on the part of the 



23 

contractor to comply with the provisions of his contract, the acting commissioner 
in charge may file his certificate with the Board of Public Works, stating the ex- 
istence of all or either of these defalcations on the part of the contractor, a copy of 
which shall be served on said contractor, together with a notice of the time and 
place where he may be heard thereon before said Board, by himself or attorney ; 
and on said hearing the Board of Pnblic Works may declare said contract aban- 
doned, and direct said commissioner to take charge of the section covered by 
said contract, and make the repairs necessary to maintain navigation according to 
law." 

It will be seen from this that the Board had reserved the power to enforce 
these contracts, in a summary way, or 1o compel their abandonment, with a view 
to the probable negligence or unfaithfuluess of the contractors. The State still ap- 
appoinis and pays engineers, and they are to exert their skill, and give the benefits 
of their experience, to the management of the works, under the contract system as 
formerly. The money is in the treasury, and the contractors must do the work 
required by either the acting commissioner, or resident engineer, and if they fail 
to do it the necessary force may be employed, and the " expenses incurred shall 
be paid by said commissioner and deducted from the next monthly payment of said 
contractor." And yet, with this power to compel the performance of the contracts, 
and with the security against loss to the State, given by the contractor, the Board 
has gone outside of the law, hunting after " the elements of responsibility, expe- 
rience, capacity, and fitness for the trust," at an annnual cost to the State so long 
as these contracts may last, of $64,381. But then they " selected" the contract- 
ors from among a large number, to wit : sixty-six, " experienced, competent, suffi- 
cient and responsible bidders, and of course more should have been paid for " select- 
ed" than for common experience, competency, sufficiency, and responsibility. But 
we admit ourselves puzzled to see wherein the " selected " are better than the 
cullings left behind ; and we apprehend that all who are familiar with the selected, 
and rejected bidders, or who will read the testimony herewith submitted, wlli 
find themselves unable to account satisfactorily for the action of the Board. 

These sixty-six bids were "opened," "deemed sufficient," "considered," "se- 
lected," and "the contracts awarded," all on the same day, to wit : the 13th of 
November. 

Let him who says this law gave the Board any discretionary power to fix rules 
for awarding the contracts in addition to the rule found in the law, point out one 
line, or one word, from which such an inference can be tortured, if he can. It 
can not be found. It is not in the law. Where did they get authority to "select" 
from among bidders all "deemed sufficient" by themselves, on any other rule than 
that the lowest of such bidders should have the contracts? Who made them 
judges of men's capacities, or fitness to do the State's work ? 

If any argument were wanted against the granting of discretionary powers to 
officers, these proceedings would afford a very strong one. They are contrary to 
the genius of our institutions, and are justly regarded with jealousy by the people, 
because always liable to abuse, and dangerous to liberty and equality ; and hence 
are very seldom granted. The general rule is that the powers and duties ol' offi- 
cers are clearly defined, and the rule has always been to allow as little to inference 
or construction as possible, and to make the margin of discretionary powers very 
narrow. The sovereign Legislative power is vested by the Constitution in the 
General Assembly. Though the Board of Public Works is created by the Consti- 
tution, (Act 8, § 12,) yet their powers and duties are to be such as the General 
Assembly may by law prescribe ; and where by Statute, a special authority is del- 
egated to particular persons, affecting the property of individuals, i' musl he 
strictly pursued." Rex v. Crook; 1 Cowper 26; Xtutex. Win Ocison, 3 Green's N. 



24 

J. R.. 340. This grant of power to the Board of Publie Works to let the repairs 
by contract, is not a general power to let the works without specifying the mode ; 
if i: were, there would be some show of authority for the exercise of discretion ; 
but it is a special power limited to the letting of the public works, and the law 
specifying the mode; and 'all powers are special where both the end and the 
me ins are specified." (Layette et. ah. v. Gano et. ah., 17 Ohio, 473.) 

Then, as the Board of public Works are the special agents of the State, charged 
with the performing of a particular duty in a mode clearly defined, their powers 
and duties must be regulated by the same rules which are applicable to special private 
agents. Otherwise we should have one set of rules to protect the rights of indi- 
viduals, as standing alone, and another set to protect the rights of individuals as 
united together and forming what is called the community, the public, or the 
State. And this would be preposterous ; for in some of his relations the rights of 
a citizen would be regulated by one law, and in other of his relatives by another 
and different law. The rights of a citizen, as a taxpayer, are just as sacred as 
the rights of the same citizen as a merchant or trader, and his rights in the one 
regard should be guarded with just as much vigilance as in the other, except that 
as an abuse of the taxing power is an infringement upon liberty ; and as liberty is 
betttr than money, the agents of the people, whose action may effect taxation, and 
thus their liberty, should be held to a more rigid adherence to the letter of their 
authority. The idea that they may transcend their powers, should not receive 
countenance for a moment, no matter what the pretext, or the occasion; for when 
once the bounds of authority are passed, and the usurpation acquiesed in, it 
serves only to invite new aggressions ; and all experience proves that power never 
goes backwards, but its course is onward, and no matter how much may be given, 
it is ever ready to grasp more. 

Those who deal with the agents of the State, can not justly claim an exemption 
from any of the risks they would incur in dealing with private agents. It certainly 
can not be claimed as a hardship f or the State to o;uard itself and its citizens against 
liability by the same rules which protect private interests in transactions between 
individuals. 

"It the powers of a private agent are special and limited, he must strictly follow 
them." (Kent ii. 790. ) And "so strictly has the rule been enforced, that the 
agent must obey his instructions ; that in a case where the agent, having money 
of his principal in his hands, was directed to employ it in the purchase of a bill 
for his principal, but the agent purchased the bill on his own credit, and the bill 
could not be collected, it was held plain that by reason of his disobedience, the 
principal might recover the amount of the bill of the agent." Hays v. Stone. W. 
Y. R. 128. "If A. authorize B. to buy him an estate at fifty dollars per acre, 
and he gives fifty-one, A. is not bound to pav the price." (Kent.) "An agent con- 
stituted for a particular purpose, and under a limtred power, can not bind his prin- 
cipal if he exceeds his power. The special power must be strictly pursued." 
(Kent ii. 793.) Walker 2o0 "If a special agent exceeds the special and lim- 
ited authority conferred on him, tr e principal is not bound by his acts ; but they 
become mere nulities. as far as he is concerned." Story's Agencv, 126. 

From these authorities it will be seen how rigidly private agents are held to the 
limits of their power. Xo resort to subtle, and forced constructions is allowed to 
ex:end their authority. And if individuals may thus define the extent to which 
they will allow agents to bind them, may not all the people do it with just as much 
strictness and certai ity, through their Legislature ? To say they can not, is to 
say that the sovereign power has not the power of self-protection, and that the 
State is less powerful than any one of the people making the State. 

But we are under no necessity to depend on reason and argument, to support 



25 

the proposition that public agents should be held to the same strict observance of 
their authority, which is applicable to private agents. This doctrine is supported 
and enforced by authority. For "when by statute, a special authority is delega- 
ted to particular persons affecting the property of individuals it must be strictly 
pursued ; and it must appear so on the fact of the proceedings. Proof aliunde, 
is not admissible to support what, though it may exist, does not appear on the 
face of the proceedings." (Curwin's revised statutes, p. 6, and authorities cited 
in note.) Here it is said that the authority must be strictly pursued, and not only 
so, but the proceedings must show on their face, that such was the case ; and if 
the record does not show it, evidence outside of the record is not admissible to 
prove it, even though it be the case. Now what does the record in this case show? 
It is true that Mr. Steadman hung a speech to the tail of a motion he made, in which 
he says that the persons to whom the contracts were awarded, were the lowest 
responsible bidders. The motion and the speech together, read about thus : "Mr. 
Steadman" moved that the contracts be awarded to the following companies ; 
"they being the lowest responsible bidders for the same." [Ex. doc. part I, 
1855, p 646.] But the record itself shows that this statement is not true, but 
that they "selected" out of sixty-aix "sufficient, experienced, competent and 
responsible" propositions, those to whom the contracts were awarded, on other 
grounds than that of responsibility, to- wit: "experience, capacity, and fitness for 
the trust." But this bold assertion was no doubt thought necessary by the Board, 
to serve as a foil to the attacks, which its introduction shows they anticipated. 
After their own admissions of its untruthfulness, upon the face of the record, it is 
scarcely necessary to refer again to the testimony of Mr. Richardson, Henry 
Miller and William Miller. 

Then, did they "strictly pursue" their authority ? Was the law broken or not? 
We have in the preceding pages, expressed our conviction that it was. Have we 
not shown that this conviction rests on a solid foundation ? Have we not shown 
by the most conclusive evidence, that the law is not only technically violated, but 
that the violation is palpable and gross, going to the very core of the law, and 
overriding its letter, its spirit, and its intentions? Have we not shown that instead 
of doing what the Legislature said they should do, they set themselves up to sup- 
pose what they intended to say ? If in a statute, affirmative words are used, 
saying that certain forms shall be followed, that certain things shall be done, those 
words are imperative. [Wend. Black. § 60. n.] Have they done as imperatively 
commanded by the law to do? To say that they have, would be a flat contra- 
diction of their own unequivocal admissions, and also of an amount of testimony 
not only satisfactory, but overwhelming. 

Then are the contracts binding upon the State ? Strictly speaking, there can 
be no liability of the State for the contracts of the agents, as no action can be had 
by the contracting parties against the State. [Kent 2, 832.] But if the agent of 
the State have been guilty of omissions of duty, or of negligence, or have done 
wrong, they are themselves responsible. [Story on Agency, § 319, 222, and 
authorities there cited.] But that the State is supreme, does not give her a right 
to be unjust ; and when we ask if the State is bound, we ask rather it she be 
bound in justice than in law. As a legal question, we think it may be considered 
settled by the facts, and on the arguments and conclusions deducad from them, 
that the State is not bound, even holding her to the same rules of law that bind 
individuals. 

We have shown that if an agent of a peison depart in the least from the letter 
of his power, his principal is not bound. We have shown by arguments drawn 
from analogy, and likewise by authority, (hat the rules which are applicable to 
private agents are applicable to public agents ; and that any deviation from the 



26 

power of a private agent which would nullify his contracts, as to his principal, 
would in like manner render void, as to the State, any contract made by any of 
the State's agents. By this mode of argument, it will be seen, the same rules of 
morals and justice are applied to the State, as principal to a contract by one of its 
agents, as those which are applied to any citizen of the State, as principal to any 
contract made by his agent. Now has the Board so departed from their power, 
that if they had been acting as the agents of an individual, that he would not be 
bound by their action? 

To conclude that an individual would be bound by their action, had they been 
acting for one, after their unquestioned and palpable violation of their instructions, 
would be to conclude that the clear, direct and universally acknowledged prece- 
dents which we have cited settle nothing, and that there is neither reason nor 
justice in the law of agency as established and sanctioned by the practice of ages. 
Then, if an individual would not be bound, it needs no argument to show that the 
State would not be, for the State is only bound to such rules of morality, justice and 
law, as rest upon its citizens. None of its citizens can claim more of it ; with jus- 
tice, than it may claim of any of its citizens. 

Then, aie we not right, and that too without leaving room to cavil or doubt, in 
drawing the conclusion that the State is not bound by these contracts, either in 
justice or in law. To our minds the case is so clear that every other conclusion 
is excluded, and reason, justice and law all unite in saying that the State is not 
bound, and that it ought to disown these unauthorized contracts. 

The statements of the Board, as to principles, and rules upon which these con- 
tracts were awarded, when regarded in the light of solemn admissions made in the 
discharge of their official duties, in their published reports, under the sanctions 
of their official obligations, as stated and explained in the preceding pages of this 
report, should be, we think, sufficient to satisfy you that the law was palpably 
violated in making those awards. But we are by no means dependent upon their 
admissions in their reports, to sustain this allegation. It will be found by 
reference to the testimony of Mr. Richardson, (No. 11,) that Mr. Steedman 
acknowledged to him that he was informed by a person entitled to confidence, that 
he was an experienced contractor, and that his own responsibility and that of his 
securities was sufficient, and that too before the section, (No. 5, on which his bid 
was lower than the contract price,) was awarded. And William Miller who bid 
lower than the contract price on section No. 1, says that after the lettings, Dr. 
Griswold informed him that his securities were ample, and that his reputation as a 
business man was all sufficient; and his knowledge of this fact accounts for his 
looking " rather confused" (see No. 3) when Mr. Miller asked why the work was 
not awarded to him instead of to A. Medbery at a higher price. Look at the 
testimony of Henry Miller, and it will be found that after the contract was made, 
Dr. Griswold told him that his bid: the lowest on section 4, was considered entirely 
responsible, but that the Board feared he would lose money on it at that price, and 
for that reason they did not let him have it. In these cases it is perfectly manifest 
that the Board knew they were not awarding the contracts to the lowest respon- 
sible bidder, even if we allow the law the latitudinarian interpretation which they 
put upon it. 

Again, they were bound to use ordinary and due diligence to inform themselves 
as to the responsibility of the lowest bidders. The lowest bidder on any section, 
who presented the names of securities, was prima facie entitled to a contract, and 
it then became the duty of the Board to notify him of the fact, and then proceed to 
inquire into the responsibility of his bid, and w'^en the Board omitted to do so, 
they omitted a very important duty. Most, if not all, the "sufficient" bidders 
were on the ground, or were represented by some one who was, and the informa- 



27 

tion necessary to enable the Board to decide who was and who was not responsible, 
was within the reach of the Board. Mr. Hamlin, the attorney of the Board, could 
have toid them, as he has told us in his deposition, that the securities of Cooper, 
Shaddinger & Co. were worth a million of dollars. Mr. Doyle and Mr. Backus 
could have testified to the responsibility of the firm and securities of J. & W. Dickey 
& Co., as they have to us. But whether the Board tried to inform themselves or 
not, is a question that relates to their individual liability in the case, rather than to 
the question of legality ; and as this is a matter which we do not propose to discuss, 
we will not pursue it further ; for, why should we spend time in administsring such 
diluted potions as a lack of " due diligence" in the Board, when the whole pro- 
ceeding festers with the virulent poison of both proved and confessed illegality ; or, 
why should we keep up the excitement of contest after opposition has prostrated 
itself by wounds inflicted by its own hands. 

But it may be claimed that the very idea of a " responsible bidder" suggests 
a comparison of bidders, and makes it necessary that the right to " select" results 
from the right to compare ; and that from the right to compare and select a 
discretionary power, such as was exercised by the Board, results as a necessary 
consequence. But let us examine this a little. To our minds, the position appears 
entirely fallacious, though it is perhaps the most plausible point that the advocates 
af the legality of the contracts have to hang upon. 

When the bids are in, the next step is, if the law is to be regarded, to ascertain 
who is the lowest bidder, for he is to have the contract if he be responsible. His 
being responsible does not depend on whether any one else is responsible or not. 
His own pecuniary ability, and that of his securities, is the sole matter of inquiry. 
Responsibility is not a relative — not a comparative thing, but a positive quality, 
the existence or non-existence of which, in each individual case, may be demon- 
strated, by testimony, beyond reasonable doubt. But no bidder's responsibility 
could ever be ascertained by comparing him with other bidders, even if the com- 
parison should be continued till doomsday. How could it ever be decided whether 
A's bid is responsible by comparing it with those of B, C, and D ? A thousand 
such comparisons would not throw one ray of light on the responsibility of A. 

The law, requiring the contracts to be let to responsible bidders, made inquiry 
and information necessary, and the Board were bound, as faithful agents, to use 
due diligence to ascertain who was the lowest responsible bidder ; and their fatal 
mistake was, that they were not discreet enough to see that the path of duty was 
plain and straight before them. This kind and this amount of " discretion " was 
certainly " contemplated by the law ;" and if they had " exercised " this sort of 
discretion, instead of that which they did exercise, and by which they were led 
away from the law, their guide, and safe conduct, into the wild regions of uncon- 
troled power, there to expatiate on " all the elements of responsibility ;" and the 
age, the accomplishments, the qualities, the labors, which constitute " experience," 
and to measure the fanciful heights, and depths, and lengths, and breadths 
of "capacity ;" and to explore the whimsical recesses of " fitness for the trust," 
then would they have served their State to more profit, and saved this committee 
and the Legislature a most embarrassing duty. 

It may be claimed, and it doubtless will be, that the State has already ratified 
these contracts, and hence it is too late to disown them. This claim will be set 
upon the ground, that, subsequent to the making of the contracts, the I eg slature 
appropriated money to pay the contractors, and by this act acquiesced in the action 
of the Board. 

What are the facts ? What is the law ? These contracts look effect on the loth 
November, 18. r >. f >. The Legislature did not meet till the first Monday of January, 
following. When it met, these contracts were subsisting. The Legislature had 



28 

official information at the opening of its session, through the Governor's Message, 
that the contracts had been made, but he did not attempt to give the facts. The 
report of the Board of Public Works, which accompanied the message, gave a very 
meager account of the transaction. It did not profess to enter into the details. 
This report was not printed and laid upon the tables of members, where they could 
inspect it, till the session was far advanced. There were, it is true, rumors of 
wrong doing on the part of the Board. But they furnished no information. The 
report itself exeited suspicion, and information was called for from the Board, by a 
resolution of the Senate, and in response to this resolution, the Board, on the 7th 
day of March, communicated to the Senate a part of the facts. This partial report 
disclosed the fact that the contracts were not let to the lowest bidder, and it was 
boldly charged that they had not let them to the lowast responsible bidder, and that 
bidders had acted fraudulently in obtaining the contracts, and even that the con- 
tracts had been awarded to favorites, through fraud of the Board. Before all the 
facts connected with the lettings, as shown by the records of the Board, had been 
communicated to the Senate, or to the House, it was determined to appoint a com- 
mittee to investigate the whole subject, and report theieon to the Legislature, to 
meet in adjourned session on the first Monday of January, 1857 Up to the time 
of the adjournment, on the 11th day of April, 1856, the General Assembly had 
only been able to learn enough of this transaction to excite alarm, and to convince 
it that an investigation, such as it was impracticable for it to make, should be had, 
and accordingly it passed an act, in which it appointed a joint investigating com- 
mittee to inquire into this and any other transactions and expenditures of the 
Boasd of Public Works ; and the Legislature never had, prior to the passage of 
the appropriation act, by which money was appropriated to pay these contractors, 
the facts, necessary to justify it in taking any other course than the one it did. 

They found, by the report of the Board, the contracts had been made, and they 
presumed, as they ought to have done, that they had been fairly and legally made. 
It would have been a most extraordinary proceeding, for the Legislature to refuse, 
on mere suspicion, or rumor, to appropriate money to keep the public works in 
repair, knowing, as they did, from the report of the Board, and the Governor's 
Message, that the repairs had been let by contract, according to authority of an 
act which they knew was in force. Thus but very partially informed as to the 
facts, it would have been totally unjustifiable, in the Legislature, to disown the 
contracts, and refuse to appropriate the money to fulfill them. 

They had been told, in the Message of Governor Medill, that an annual saving 
of 893,172 a year had been effected by the contracts. They were told the same, 
in substance, by the Board, in their annual report, and they had a right to receive 
it as true. And for them to disown a proceeding by which that amount of money 
was, according to those officers, to be saved to the State, in the year 1856, and 
fall back upon the old mode of making the repairs, would have been totally inex- 
cusable in the Legislature, without knowing causes for such action, more satisfac- 
tory than had been laid before them, or than they were able to gather up. 

Such is a brief and substantial statement of the facts, bearing upon the ques- 
tion of the ratification of these contracts. On this State of facts, what is the law? 

" An acquiescence in the assumed agency of another, when the acts are brought 
to the knowledge of the principal, is equivalent to an express authority." (Kent 
2, 785.) "But a ratification of the act of the agent in ignorance of his miscon- 
duct, will not, as to the agent, be binding on the principal." (Hays v. Stone, 7, 
Hills N. Y. R., 132; Owen v. Hull, 9 Peters, 608.) 

" A principal who knows of a transaction of his agent, in which he exceeds his 
authority, and does not promptly disown it, can not afterwards do so, because it 



29 

would unjustly injure him with whom the agent dealt." (Taylor v. Miami Exp 
Co., 6, Ohio, 169-170. 

" The ratification must be made with a full knowledge of all the facts and circum- 
stances. If the ratification of the principal be without such knowledge, it will not 
be obligatory upon him, whether his want of knowledge arise from the designed, 
or undesigned, concealment, or misrepresentation of the agent, or from mere in- 
advertence." (Story's Agency, 243.) 

Considered in connection with the facts, these authorities must entirely demolish 
all argument, or pretence of argument, in favor of the legality of these contracts, 
growing out of the alleged acquiescence in, and ratification of them, by the Leg- 
islature, by the mere act of appropriating money to meet them, while it was taking 
the steps necessary to "a full knowledge of the facts," which were absolutely 
necessary to a proper determination of the question. The Legislature acted as 
promptly as the nature of the case would allow ; and if they have stepped pru- 
dently, and even cautiously, certainly they have not, by such a course, lost any 
of their power to protect the rights of the people, against the wrungs inflicted 
upon them by these proceedings of the Board, so far as the future is concerned. 

But, we shall be told, doubtless, that most of the contractors have acted in good 
faith, and that it is not right that they should suffer, because the agents of the 
State transcended the bounds of their power. This is a very well conceivod 
sophism. It aims at leading our judgment, by getting hold upon the cords of our 
sympathy ; and to modify justice by appeals to generosity. Power is always pro- 
pitiated by every insidious appliance that ingenuity, spurred into activity by self- 
ishness, can bring to bear upon it. The lenity of the Legislature is so proverbial, 
that it is presumed upon with great confidence, by those who have purposes to 
accomplish, through its instrumentality. Last winter, when it was called on to 
appropriate nearly a third of a million of dollars, to pay debts incurred on the 
Dayton and Fewburg Asylums, and the New State House, in defiance of the 
plainest positive prohibitions — mechanics, with their starving families, were made 
to march in sorrowful procession before our imaginations ; our ears were filled 
with the wailings of suffering orphanage, pining in want ; the ghosts of lunatics 
were to haunt us ; and the importation of an earthquake was threatened, for the 
express purpose of swallowing the State House. We were melted into pity by the 
pathetic, and awed into duty by the terrible. Our sympathies were used to un- 
dermine our resolution, and then, by easy degrees, we soon came to the conclu- 
sion to end all this woe, and prevent these foreboded catastrophes, by paying the 
unauthorized debts of the Asylums and the State House. 

If we attempt to disaffirm these contracts, no doubt we shall have similar 
scenes enacted, with additions. We may expect to hear bugaboo crack his whip, 
and rattle his chains behind the curtain, and to see raw-head and bloody -bones 
stalking across the stage, gesticulating and bellowing destruction to us all. 

The intolerable sufferings of these contractors which may be arrayed in touching 
groups before our eyes, will on a close examination be found to be fictions manu- 
factured for the occasion. They are certainly not objects of pity, and if the Legis- 
lature grants them justice, which it no doubt will, they should be content. (Jener- 
osity is a very good thing on a proper occasion, but justice is always in season ; 
and the Legislature has no right to be generous to these very clever gentlemen, 
while justice to the tax-payers has paramount claims upon them. 

But what is the law as to those who deal with agents ? " It is incumbent on those 
who deal with agents, knowing them to be such, to ascertain the extent of their authority ; 
and a special agent who exceeds his authority, in no case binds his principal." 
(Walker's American Law, 261.) This is the law as applicable to persons who 
deal with private agents, whose instructions and powers are not public : ami it is 



30 

certainly much more reasonable and just when applied to persons who deal with 
the Board of Public Works. Their duties and powers are prescrbed in a public 
statute. The statutes are published by authority, and are within every man's 
reach, and he may, if he will, find out what the law is, and hence the presumption 
that every man knows the law, has some significance, and reason in it, in Ohio. 

While the fraudulent conduct of a contractor in procuring a contract may make 
it void, yet if the Board of Public Works transcended their powers, the contracts 
are illegal, and having received the taint of illegality at the time of their inception, 
no amount of honesty on the part of the contractor can cure them. But their 
honesty should secure for them a ready justice, and if they have invested money 
inexpensive implements, as some of them have, of a highly useful character in the 
repairing of such works, the State should take these of them at an appraisement. 
Of course it could not be esteemed improper to take the tools, boats, &c, of all 
the contractors, as they took them of the State — at an appraisement. 

It would be a very nice thing, indeed, for these contractors (about fifteen in all 
now) to get for repairing the canals $64,381 a year more than the State could 
have got it done for. But it has always been considered true philanthropy to do 
the greatest good to the greatest number; and while our generosity may be 
appealed to on behalf of these contractors, the millions of the people who sup- 
port government have a right to require justice, exact and rigid justice. 

There is but one other point on which we can conceive it likely that the advo- 
cates of these contracts may try to hang a defense, and as things the most sacred 
are generally called on for aid on such occasions, no matter how bad the cause, we 
may be allowed to anticipate that the constitution will be invoked to protect the 
sacredness of contracts. If the General Assembly should nndertake to discover 
these void contracts, of course a howl will be raised about repudiation, and conser- 
vatism will counsel submission to secure peace. 

The constitution says that " no State shall pass any law impairing the obliga- 
tions of contracts/' Granted without argument. But before the supporters of 
these contracts can entrench themselves behind this constitutional breastwork, 
they must overthrow the arguments and the authorities which we have arrayed, 
showing that these things, and these, proceedings, which we call contracts, because we 
cannot get another name for them, are not contracts and never were. Being made 
by the agents of the State in a manner unauthorized, for a sum which the State 
never agreed to pay, they are void from the beginning. We are very far from 
taking the position that the State may lightly break her agreement. Throughout 
this argument we have held the State bound to the same rules of morality as those 
which are obligatory upon individuals. We would not intimate that she may 
repudiate her contracts, we only say that she may do what the humblest citizen 
within her borders may do when a contract is made in his name, the terms of 
which he never authorized, and that is to disown it. The constitution was intended 
to protect contracts, not to shield every thing that might be called a contract. Is 
this such a case, as we have before asked, as would justify an individual in dis- 
affirming the act of his agent ? If it is, then is the State justifiable in disaf- 
firming it. 

We have now closed the argument of the power and right of the Legislature 
to disown these contracts, and we think they are established clearly aud firmly. 
It only remains to say a few words as to the question of policy. 

If the State does not stand a reasonable chance to make something by their dis- 
affirmance, as a matter of expediency it might make little difference whether they 
were approved or disavowed by the State. Bnt as a matter of principle it would 
•till be very important to assert the doctrine in the legislation of the State, that its 
agents must obey the law as they find it, and not go to supposing what the Legis- 



31 

lature meant to say instead of following what they had said. There is no safety 
except in this rule. 

In theory the people are sovereign, and they should be so in fact, and if they 
tamely submit to encroachments upon their rights there will never be wanting those 
who will seek pretexts for infringements. It is the prerogaive of the people, to 
have their will, as expressed through the constitution and laws, obeyed to the letter; 
and they are not to be told they must wait till they see whether they are damaged 
by a wrongful act of any of their agents before they will decide whether they will 
be bound by it or not. And it should be enough for the Representatives of the 
people to know that the action of any of the State's agents is in violation of law, 
and whether committed through negligence, folly, or Iraud, it becomes their duty 
as the constitutional guardians of the treasury, and through it controlling the power 
of taxation, and effecting thus directly the liberties of the people, to disaffirm such 
action — especially if detrimental to the public interest. So careful, and so justly 
so, are the people of their rights, that they have guarded them by constitutional 
provisions whereever they could ; and it has always been their policy to prescribe 
the line of duty to all their agents, and if deviations, the most palpable, are to go 
unrebuked, what is their policy worth ? A rigid accountability of public officers 
has always been a very popular theory, and if we would have a good and a pure 
government we must practice it. No violation of authority — no usurpation of 
power, should be excused or palliated, except upon those rare exigencies which 
sometimes come upon states, and which furnish reasons the most cogent and satis- 
factory. 

It is shown beyond dispute that these repairs might have been let to persons just 
as responsible as those who now have them, so as to have saved 864,38 1 annually 
to the State. This sum may appear small, but if added to the meager net income 
of the canals for the last year it would swell it into respectability. 

There can be no reasonable grounds to doubt that if a bill be passed, to re-let 
these repairs, in sixty days they can be let at a saving of as much, or more than 
should have been saved by the former lettings. The anxiety of the present con- 
tractors to hold on to them, goes a good way to establish this conclusion. 

And if we have the power and the right, and it be politic, then the question 
resolves itself into a very simple one — have we the will ? To doubt that we have, 
is to call in question both our integrity and our courage. 

If it should be admitted that the proceedings of the board are illegal, but yet 
be claimed that the court is the proper tribunal to decide the question, we have 
only to call to mind the nature of the obligation resting upon us as legislators, 
and then refer to Art. 2, Sec. 22, of the Constitution which says : " No money 
shall be drawn from the treasury, except in pursuance of a specific appropriation 
made by law." Now, is this power to open and shut the treasury, put into the 
hands of the Legislature to no purpose ? Does this grant of power impose no 
corresponding duties upon us? Powers and duties are commensurate, it is our 
solemn duty to see that money is not drawn out of the treasury for improper pur- 
poses ; and this duty imposes on us the further duty of judging of the propriety 
Or impropriety — the legality and illegality — of every measure which proposes to 
take money out of the treasury. The responsibility is upon us — and we cannot 
avoid it if we would. 

If, as is claimed, any or all of there contracts, from any cause, are illegal, and were 
so from the beginning, another conclusion follows as a necessary consequence : 
viz : The contractors stand exactly in the position of persons who have done 
work for the State without any stipulation as to the reward ; in which case there 
would be an implied agreement that the State should pay what the labor i* worth. 
Wchave remarked on this subject somewhat at length in connection with section 



;. 



; :-: . 




1. J"i ' . 1 . 

i: ;->, vil" : _ : :t : l. _ __: 

t - _ z. - ~ - ' - ' jl : ~ - ~ -.-. - '.- L".ii.:Ht i L-i ~:i _: _ ._ - ." ; ~v~i : 

:.: __ : : - : r .._.-_: > - ;..-:-. .::-::.--. i : - .. - j :- : : - .-. i .i _- -. ; 

--.--.-..:-"---" - - - - - - 

777.1 . ! - 7 7 .:. 7 




r:<- 



- - .._ - n ._.::. . ~ . . - 1 ..i 

Lu.x l7 : .:t . - . w -: . - . - : ;, T 




7: t- 



33 

quently happened that men were put into the responsible post of superintendent 
of repairs more because they were good partisans, than because they were good 
men for the post. But under the contract system the contractors will, we may safe- 
ly assume, get the men to manage for them who can manage best. We were told 
by one of the present contractors that he suffered some party friends to control 
his choice of superintendent, and that he swamped him down with expenses, and 
he was compeled, in self-protection, to seek another, and he sought for a man suited 
for the place, regardless of his politics, and that the savings of the latter made 
up his losses by the former, and enabled him to realize a fair profit on his contract. 

Some of the sections are perhaps too heavy for a single contract, and it might be 
a matter of economy to add another engineer or two, in order to secure a more 
frequent inspection, and a closer oversight. 

A single alteration in the law regulating the salaries of the Board, would, we 
think, do much to increase the efficiency of their service. Under the law, as it 
now stands, they get a stated salary of $1,500, per year. Their duties are of such 
a nature that they cannot be well discharged without traveling frequently over 
the entire line of the work. The very moment they begin to do that which it is 
absolutely necessary for them to do, in order to the proper discharge of their 
duties, they begin to incur extra expenses, and if they were to travel as much as 
the public interest would seem to require them to do, it would use up a large portion 
of their salaries. To remove this obstacle to the efficient service of the State, by the 
commissioners, an allowance, to be used only in paying traveling expenses upon 
the line of the works, should be made. 

Under the laws as now in force, the works are divided into three divisions, and 
each commissioner has almost the exclusive management of his division, and it has 
been considered rather as officiousness for one to propose any modification of the 
plans of the other. This is radically wrong, in our view, and while each should, 
as now be an acting commissioner of a particular part of the work, yet it should be 
made the duty of all to exercise a close supervision over each, and to go over the 
whole line of the works at least once or twice a year. 

As the repairing of the Public Works by contract, is an experiment, they should 
not, it seems to us, be let at very long periods, till the experiment is fully tested, 
we are impressed with the belief that this is the proper mode, if guarded as it 
should be, and if the works were let for, say a period of two years. " The defects 
of the system would be developed, and then the Legislature would have a chance 
to make improvements, before re-lettings took place. 

The contractors should, we think, be required to keep the accurate accounts of 
their expenditures, and to report them annually to the Board, or to the auditor of 
State. To secure this, the last monthly payment might be retained, until their 
report for the year is made. These reports would Bhow how much the contract 
system costs the contractors, and would furnish the best possible basis of estimate 
for bidders at subsequent lettings, and if the State had been paying too much, these 
reports will show it, and competition will prevent it in future. This suggestion 
is another reason in favor of letting for short tern 

Another matter worthy of consideration is, wh< ther it would not be well for th<* 
State to rei i Hoard, the entire control of the water in some of the princi 

pal reservoir;;, and make it their duty to ap] eful man to superintend and 

control the letting out of the water. level getting too tow, dest 

whole line of canal, and this render* il i fthe utmost importance to hai 
plies of wa1 ireful manner. 

If the State should again require the works to be let, it would seem to be due to 
the growing public sentiment in favor of tl)e - '. of the publi them 

3 — BEP. JOINT COM. PUB. WORKS. 



34 

: 

[ 

. and 
Beiof r tbe 

Miai^ -ark. 

In making up an man, 

if he 
emei renc\ — I if he 

vrere I 

:eaper and 
: ould 
in ; ::. L 

ee uri- 
nes. 
must 

i 

ticn The le 

raid, 

- 

in thi 

Other mattea 

As for instance old be 

advci 

] 

eould mak ziade 

qui by :'.. i Board for t 

and 

Dr. Pan 
tbe a '-. andagr; [one, if 

'. 

BBee of 

■e idea, what the work had fornc are bidding 

: random. 
0:: '\. :. the 

as $4^ • Mr. Back 

I 
The Con 

i 

fgtem, if properly giia: :' :om- 

peteL .Idmode. 



35 



REPORTED SAVING BY THE CONTRA CTB— AVERAGE COST. 

In his annual message for 1856, Governor Medill says there has been effected 
an annual saving, by these lettings, of 893,172, and in their annual report for 
the same year, the Board represent an annnal saving of over $450,000 in the 
term of five years. 

These statements are not true, and we proceed to show it. In order to ascertain 
whether there is any actual saving by the contracts it is necessary First, to make 
accurate estimates of the cost under the old system of repairs; Second, to know 
what the actual cost of the contract system is. This latter point cannot be satis- 
factorily settled save by trying the contract system, and ascertaining how much 
is expended for repairs, &c, over and above the amount paid to contractors for 
work not included in the contracts. 

As these two things are necessary to arrive at a proper conclusion, we shall now 
proceed to give what information we have been able to get on them : and first : 
THE AVERAGE COST. 

At the time of the lettings, the Board made out an estimate of the annual 
average cost of each section. This estimate amounted in the aggregate to $370,- 
703. Afterwards, to wit : on the 7th day of March the Board made part of a 
report, containing the proceedings of the Board as shown by their files and min- 
utes, in relation to these lettings. The resolutions calling for this report required, 
among other things, that the Board should report the average cost of each section, 
excluding from the account all items not properly chargeable to repairs, but to 
construction, and which the contractors are not bound under the contracts to do. 
These reports, heretofore alluded to, in remarks made on section No. 6, show that 
the average cost of the several sections was in the aggregate largely above the 
actual average cost. The estimates, as made out at the time of the lettings, 
approximated correctness on all the sections, except sections Nos. 6 and 7. Sec- 
tion No. 2 was under estimated at the lettings. 

But the following table shows all the estimates at a glance ; as well those made 
out and exhibited to bidders at the lettings, as those afterwards made out in answer 
to Senate resolution ; and also the contract price of each section, and the lowest 
bid on each section shown to be responsible by testimony hereinbefore refered to, 
and hereinafter submitted. 



aau 

Number 


Cost per year for 


Cost per year for 


Contract price 


Lowest re- 


of 


6 years as 


6 years as re- 


per year. 


sponsible bid. 


Section. 


shown to bidders. 


ported to Senate. 






No. 1 


$ 32,505 


$ 31,819 


8 27,500 


$ 21,000 


« g 


26,980 


29,763 


22,980 


20,000 


" 3 


53,438 


47,380 


37,700 


37,700 


" 4 


9,687 


9,714 


9,650 


7,499 


" 5 


25,665 


25,670 


25,000 


18,009 


" 6* 


45,917 


29,930 




84,000 


u 7 


108,689 


135,104 


118,000 


81,000 


" 8 


7,765 


5,715 


5,409 


3,760 


1 Total. 


8870,703 


i 5,098 


$27; 





*W. Griswold made a minority report on tl o the Senate, ihowin 

i<> l>e $34,878. This minority report ia aleooopied into thii report. 






: the r epaiis 

::' -- S-: . :~; ~tLt !-: r. 

.::..: :::■.-.:: .^::::z« 



to repairs* and wh 



:z :: ::: :i 



:z :1: Il.lzl: ~t--— : - I'illll. 2":r."_ 
Tz-. rriiii :i :__f p~-rz :j l1- :r: 
rlsli ::: ::is::m::;ij :i-i- .:.£? :: 
:nj. -I'l-cf- 1 :•:>.= — rri ?>: :::- i. ": f 

':■::::-::. :.:.i ::' :: fi:^i •;:: :e 
::r::i: :~— riZi ::' '.'.: : :z:.\. . 
::_:- ~ii :::r;:i v.l 7izf. 1:4; ■ 
::: lLL.Lzii Zx:eii::i. iz; ::: ~i:i 
5.i>f ::' ::i-:i:t! t >i :i-e --lit:- • 

I ir j: =.- :_ r '. i ; : — .-. = : i . " '. ! : : 
zz'Zi ill i::uz: :' :-:t77-.i •; -..;.; ~_. 
5 : :.:i "^ ll.il 7'^; :i; ~~ z\--. : ri :" 
i : :4: JtL i:~. -.:'.-; :-z -tL.7<= :izi 

■ : .:i: .i iziszcz. ~- :i~: :V.; .: : 

: LI I 5 L_ 71 "c . I L L.S w~ I I " £_ - . ~ T~ '. I 

•-._f~f ::: L-Llll-t r^^frif: :■: llz-t : \z 

_- :'iz- zzzzz. :~z :.'.:*•;: :53 : , 
Ekw work dose daring die Year on & 
::zzizrz:z:z. i~i «:::: >:r:: :;- lllll 
$153 ::f I"} 

Ir. ±r :•?: -:r.i ::: '. : :- n: If: 
.- V!i~: : ,zi Z::r :=j:.L. :, ".ir.r z 
z.i.rL :z :i::. :- :i:..:f'-. ':■- i,::i ? 
ti:.:i::. :::" ':^:ir ~ l- 7. :;ej ; 



:.:""_-:." : t . . :. « .5 
~^'zzi :':': 21 \~: 2 
:.i : _• : r_L-~rr.Tr: 
iirXT-iif-: ::' i: 
:. . ::' - z:z illjll': 
I 2- i - 1l " -:;' ; 
it is staled thai, ' 
:: ,-.?f lis : : : .ec l 



:t! ; : I t : 

"::'-: _21" .. -i"- _ . z_.:i-: lz: 

&k and Erie Canals were designated, for the 

t report of 4 . "an 

sacs, aboTe ?I::-: 

,rSSKjn of e:. _. : 

- ---'.'.zzzrz ■'.:.. i ■"_:■ ..:: ::" l: - 

t :- :.l . _. l_ r -;L - ; ;: - t :\L:z..j ;.-_ 

- - . r.LLL-_;TL izi :i :■- s -.z- ., n.'z :•: 

■ :-- - • 

: :..-.-_. L.ii I :lt l.-z-.. llh::_ :: :. ":nr.z? 
pkce of inferior wooden ones, amonming to 



the Board report on tlr __ A . 
unber of wooden stradBores which were re- 

r::r:: : - -llll • ; -.It '£ : .l;ll • 27 :z :zr iz: ?z 
Lr ■-: ... •.:-: ::" :.. i : " . .i-:.-_ll:li l'iizl ll 



37 

the account for repairs. None of them should have been included in these esti = 
mates, as the contractors can not be required to put up a structur of better and 
more expensive materials than the original was made of. It would have been 
proper to estimate the cost of all new structures made to replace old ones, when 
the new is of the same kind as the old, and when the new structure is of other 
and more expensive materials or workmanship, then the excess of the cost of the 
improved structure over the old one should not have entered into the estimate; for, 
if under the ontract any such extra work should be done, it must be paid for a* 
extra. 

The Committee believe that if all such new structures as are not covered by the 
contracts on sections six and seven, were deducted from the estimated annual aver- 
age cost, as made out by the Board, that the result would show very little if any 
saving effected by the lettings. These extracts sufficiently illustrate what we say 
as to a probable over-estimate of the average cost, and it would seem highly prob- 
able, from these statements, that our opinion is correct. But we have examined the 
whole subject with a good deal of care, and our inquiries have satisfied us of the 
truth of this general statement, and those who will be at the pains to examine care- 
fully the items reported by the Board, will see that many of them are such as the 
contracts do not cover. And as we have shown that the estimates which show a 
saving of $93,172 annually are too high, and that, too, by the round sum of S55,- 
605 annually, which alone reduces the reported annual saving from $93,172 to 
•$37,657, let us pursue the inquiry as to what the real apparent saving is, provided 
we admit that the last estimate of the Board, as made to the Senate, is not too 
high, which, as before said, we feel assured it is; and the next thing to consider is — 

THE ACTUAL COST FOR 1856. 

But we have not ascertained the relative cost of the contract system, and the old 
system of repairs, until we have found what the contract system actually costs. 
By reference to the contracts it will be found that all the work then under contract 
was to be finished by the State ; and whatever expense is thus incurred, must t>* 
added to the amount paid contractors. We have no means of ascertaining the 
amount thus paid during the year, but we have the amounts appropriated by the 
Legislature to pay for work under contract on the 15th November, 1855, in the 
laws of 1856, page 202-3. The sums so to be used were some how covered up 
in the appropriation bill, but they may be got out by subtracting the contract price 
of each section from the amount appropriated for each section ; for by seeing the 
Appropriation Act, it will he found that the sum appropriated for superintendence 
and repairs on each section, includes the "amount required to complete repairs 
under contract on 15th November, 1855." 



38 



The Following Table shows the sum at which each section of the works was let, 
the sum appropriated for superintendence and repairs, by the act of April 9, 
1856, and the excess of the appropriation for each section over the contract price 
to pay for work under contract, November 15, 1855, but not completed. 



Number of Sec- 


Price let at per year. 


Appropriations for 


Excess of Appropria- 


tions. 




1856. 


tion over c'ntrct price. 


No. 1 


$27,500 


$32,425 43 


$4,925 46 


" 2 


22,980 


23.000 00 


120 00 


" 3 


37,700 


39,857 53 


2,157 55 


" 4 


9,650 


12,092 76 


2,441 24 


" 5 _ 


25,000 


25,322 00 


322 00 


" 6 


3,2,000 


32,150 00 


150 00 


" 7 


118,000 


357,648 46 


39,648 46 


f< 8 


5,499 


5,886 00 


387 00 


Total 


#278,329 


$328,383 18 


$50,151 91 



Here it will be seen the excess which for the purpose of completing work under 
eontract November 15, 1856, is $50,151 91. This is not so large as it ought to 
appear, for by the terms of the contracts the contrators were to take the tools of the 
State at an appraisement, and the value of them was to be deducted from the con- 
tract price, in twelve eqtial parts, as they drew their monthly pay. We have not 
ascertained what this sum is, but it is mentioned merely to show that our calcula- 
tion is a fair one, as it counts this sum, whatever it may be, as nothing in estimat- 
ing the amount paid in 1856., 

Now, the contract price on all the sections, is $278,329. 

If the sum appropriated, as above shown, to complete work under contract but 
not completed at the close of the fiscal year, was all used, it would add so much to 
the cost of the repairs of the canals for 1856, which, added to the contract price, 
would make the repairs cost, for the year 1856, the sum of $328,471; How much 
of this $50,151 was not expended, and- which now remains in the treasury, we are 
unable to say ; but as it was appropriated to pay for work "under contract" and 
as the price of things under contract is generally fixed, it seems likely that it is 
mostly used. However, so much of it as was still in the treasury at the close of 
the fiscal year, will be properly deducted from this sum. The annual reports of 
the Auditor, and the Board of Public Works, will enable every one to settle this 
question for themselves. 

But there is still another item of importance to be taken into the account of ex- 
penses for 1856. It consists of sums appropriated by the act of April 10th, 1856, 
(Laws, pages 220, 221,) to pay ballances due on unsettled accounts for superinten- 
dence and repairs, &c, amounting in the aggregate to $7,872 ; and also the sum 
of $32,935 38, "to pay checks issued since the 15th November, 1855, and bal- 
ances for which checks had not been issued on account of repairs done previously 
to that day." (Page 221.) These two sums amount in the aggregate to $40,807. 
Now, if we add to — 

The contract price, viz. .. „_____-_-.._ $278,329 

The sums named above „ , - 50,151 

And . . 7,872 

And .._ 32,935 



We have a total of... .-,--- — ... $369,287 



as the total cost of the canals in 1856, provided the sums appropriated as above 
stated have been expended. Whatever balances of these specific appropriations, the 
Auditor's Report may show as unexpended on the 15th of November, 1856, must 
of course be deducted from this sum. But we apprehend, as it was all to pay for 
work done and under contract, and to redeem checks outstanding, that little of it 
remains undrawn. 

We have before shown that the average annual expense for six years was 855,- 
605 too high, and that deducting this from the reported annual saving of 893,172, 
it reduces it to $37,567. Now, if we compare the actual annual average cost for 
six years to the cost of 1856, as before stated, we shall find that there is not only 
no saving by the contracts in 1856, but an actual loss. 

Cost, as above ascertained, for 1856 8369,415 

Actual average cost for six years . 315,098 

Excess of cost in 1856 over average for six years $54,31 7 

Thus it is seen, that if the sums appropriated, as above stated, were all used in 
the year 1856, there is an actual loss of 854,317, instead of a saving of 893,- 
172, as reported by Gov. Medill, But if only half of these sums has been used 
in addition to the amount of the contract prices, then we have one-half of 883,- 
086=845,543, which still swamps the saving 837,567, and shows a loss of 87,912. 

We have treated the 8278,329 due for the year to the contractors, as so much 
money expended. The report of the Auditor may show that this has not all been 
drawn — and care must be taken to charge the public works for 1856 with the en- 
tire sum due to contractors as so much money paid, and then to ascertain the actual 
cost for the year, add so much as has been expended out of other appropriations. 

It may be claimed that the sums appropriated for work done and under contract 
in 1855, belongs to and should be charged to the account of expenses for 1855. 
It is a sufficient reply to all this, that the practice has been, without exception, to 
throw all sums unsettled, and for which checks have not been issued prior to the 
expiration of the fiscal year, to wit : the 15th November, forward into the account 
of expenses for the next year. We do not make this statement by way of argu- 
ment against the contract system. As is elsewhere shown, we regard this as per- 
haps the least objectionable mode of making repairs. But we desire that the 
truth should appear ; and this shows that the proceedings of the Board, illegal as 
we conceive them to be, have not the poor palliative of effecting a saving to the 
State. 

But it may be claimed that the expenses of 1856 above the contract prices 
should be distributed equally to each of the five years for which the contracts are 
to run. If this be done and we take the sum appropriated as the sum expended, 
viz : 883,086, it will amount to 816,616 annually; which, deducted from the 837,- 
567 shown io be saved annually by taking nothing into the account of exp 
for 1856, only the contract prices, and allowing the aggregate cost for six years as 
reported to the Senate to be correct, leaves as the annual saving under the con- 
tracts, the sum of 820,951, instead of 893,172, making no allowance for repairs 
to be made outside of the contracts. 

COMPARATIVE COST AND COLLECTIONS ON THE OHIO CANAL, 
AND THE MIAMI AND ERIE CANAL, 1 N 

In their annual Report of the expenses of the Miami and Erie Oanal for 18 
(Ex. Doo., Part 1, p. 418, 421, 422,) the following Statement la madobythe 
lioard : 



40 

EXPENSES NORTHERN BtVI I Bi O Ji. 

There h- \ on this Division, by check 

Commissioner, during the yes 15, 185.5 — 

For Superintends :e and Repairs .. 831,492 53 

New Work 7.31-2 93 

Land | .•; 

Incid- . .._ _ 1,479 73 

On Awards. 1 2,805 Id 

Total 844,095 13 



BXFKXSE5 — SOUTHERN AND MIDDLE DIVISION. 

There h - _ liddle and Southern Divisions of the Miami and 

Erie Canal k of A. P. Miller, Acting Commissioner, on the Auditor oi 

State, for u ; " .; 15, 1855 — 

On Contra . :- and Repairs 854.51 

On Awards _~_ . 1,-24: 

For Land . 450 00 

For Wage gases 1,91 

J — $58,116 33 

By check of } teaman. Acting Commissioner, for 

ending November, 15, II 55 — 

On Contra rs_ . . . 8 1 1 6,466 29 

On Awards __/._._. 

For Incidental E . 1,652 48 

For Land _ . _. ^5 X 

Total. .._. .. . 8118,233 77 

Total expense Miami and Erie Cam fiscal y eat 

ending » 15,1855 .*_._ 8224,445 &\J 



Ey referes nenl page 445 ' .. . be 

turn collect* ling the 

ever was . expense, an - 

trom the . . was 8230,913 71 

this entire C : : 5,467 91 

to be dec'. - informed an 

perhaps,:::: ing was made oi 

line in that ~ 

At the close ■ for which el 

not been issu iwp n ali on act, passed April 10, 1856, (Laws, 

page 221,; :>i he St Marys" Feeder and Reservoir, and the 

Sydney Fee m shows a 

cost p-er nrik :5, of 

5766 OS pr: 



41 

COST AND COLLECTIONS ON THE OHIO CANAL FOR 1855. 

By reference to the same report above cited, (pages 425 and 429,) it will be 
found that the expense of the Ohio Canal for 1855, was 894,804 91. 

The collections upon it for the same time were $197,051 42, (ib. 445,) showing 
an excess of collections over expenses of $102,246 51. 

There are in this Canal, including the Trenton, Dresden, Granville and Columbus 
Feeders, 332 miles, and it cost $285,55 per mile. 

Mr. Steedman was the Acting Commissioner on the Miami and Erie, and Mr. 
Blickensderfer on the Ohio, from Cleveland to the Licking Dam, and W. Griswold 
from the Dam to the Ohio river, during this year. 

To us, and we think to every one at all acquainted with the two Canals, and the 
character of the country through which each runs, this vast disparity in the relative 
cost is totally inexplicable on the hypothesis of equal faithfulness and competency. 

COST AND COLLECTIONS ON THE OHIO CANAL—INCLUDING THE 
WALHONDING CANAL, 25 MILES LONG— FOR 1855. 

The superintendence and repairs on the Walhonding Canal for 1855, (ex. doc, 
part l,p. 425,) was $1,167. 

The collections on the same for the same time were $337 20. 

The cost of the Ohio Canal, including the Walhonding Canal, was $95,974 11. 

The collections in the same year amounted to $197,388 68, including those on 
the Walhonding Canal, 

The Ohio Canal, including the Walhonding Canal, is 357 miles long. Now, if 
we divide the cost of repairs of both, that is $95,974 11, by the length of both, we 
have, as the cost per mile of the Ohio Canal, for 1855, the sum of $268 83 against 
$766 03 per mile, for the same year, on the Miami and Erie Canal. 

COST AND COLLECTIONS ON THE HOCKING CANAL FOR 1855. 

There was expended on this work $7,145 18, and collected $16,289 70 ; en 
of receipts over expenditures $9,143 90. 

This Canal, including the Lancaster Side Cut, is 56 miles long, and cost, per 
mile, was $127 60. 

COST FOR SIX YEARS. AS SHOWN TO BIDDERS. 

On Sections Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the Ohio Canal and Feeders, including the Wal- 
honding Canal, the annual average cost for six years was $112,923 on the 357 
miles, $316 31 a mile ; while on the 293 miles, in Sections 6 and 7, the Miami and 
Erie Canal and its Feeders and Reservoirs, the total average annual cost for six 
years was $214,606, or $732 a mile. 

OHIO AND MIAMI AND ERIE CANAL — COST OF EACH UNDi 
CONTRACTS, IN THE AGGREGATE AND BY THE MILE. 

The 357 miles of canal included in the Ohio, and f < ders, and the W 
was let .v ite of $88, < . while the Miami and 

and its feeders, 293 miles, was let ; of $150,000, or 

mile. We have sought in vain, for a satisfactory solution of this i 
chara.' 

If Section No. 7 had been h t to 
ooo per annum, 
have go] • ' 5 a mil< , or I 
Cooper is t a whioh, including 

*3 — REP. JOINT COM. run. WORKS. 



42 

114 miles, for which he gets $37,700 a year, or 8330 90 a mile; or 864 30 a 
mile less than his bid on Section No. 7. Certainly, if the contractors on the Ohio 
Canal can make a profit, and some of them have told us their profits were rea- 
sonable and fair, then could Cooper have done the work oa Section No. 7, and had 
a wide margin for profits, at his bid; and yet this section, by an exercise of dis- 
cretion, was let to Forrer, Burt & Co., at 8118,000 a year, or 8575 61 a mile ; or 
875 39 a mile more than double the cost of the Ohio Canal ! If the law contem- 
plated the exercise of such a discretion, by the Board, as would produce such 
results as these, then was it a very bad law ; and if it did not contemplate the ex- 
ercise of such discretion, then did the Board commit a daring act of usurpation. 

In their annual report, for 1849, the Board of Public Works, then consisting of 
E. S. Hamlin, Samuel Forrer, and Jacob Blickensderfer, Jr., gave the '-average 
cost <?/ superintendence and, repairs, yearly, during three periods of jive consecutive 
years, each beginning with the year 1835, of the Miami and Erie Canal." It was 
as follows : 

Miami Canal 1835 to 1839, 8400 00 per mile. 

Miami and Erie Canal, and branches 1840 to 1844, 356 00 

" 1845tol849, 32100 " 

(See Report of Public Works, 1849, Doc. No. 6, 1849, page 538.) 

And yet the average cost for six years, including 1849, as ascertained by the 
Board, and shown to bidders, was 8732 a mile, and it was let for repairs at 851 1 94 
a mile. 

During the three periods of five years each above named, as will be seen by 
reference to the same document, same page, the Ohio Canal cost, 

The Ohio Canal, and Navigable Feeders 1835 to 1839, 8511 00 per mile. 

" 1840 to 1844, 349 00 

'< " " " •' 1845tol849, 32200 

And the same work cost, as estimated to show to bidders, 8316 31 a mile, and 
was let for five years at 8247 a mile. 

A new canal is always more expensive than an old one, and we see the expenses 
of repairs diminishing regularly on the Ohio Canal, but we mark no corresponding 
diminuation of expense on the Miami and Erie Canal. 

Who is responsible for all this ? We give here a list of the members of the 
Board, from 1845 to 1856 inclusive, lest those should suffer by this comparison who 
ought not. 

1845, O. FoDet, J. Blickensderfer, Samuel Forrer. 

1846, do do do 

1847, do do do 

1848, do do co 

1849, E. S. Hamlin, do do 

1850, do G-. W. Manypenny, do 

1851, do do "A. P.Miller. 

1852, Alex. P. Miller, do James B. Steedrnan. 

1853, do James B. Steedrnan, Wayne Griswold. 

1854, do do do 

1855, James B. Steedrnan, Wayne Griswold, J. Blickensderfer. 

1856, J. Blickensderfer, do Alex. G. Conover. 



43 

COST OF MIAMI AND ERIE CANAL FOR 1856. 

As hereinbefore shown, the contractors on the Miami and Erie Canal are en- 
titled to $150,000, for repairs in 1856. The appropriation act of April 9, 1856, 
shows that there was appropriated, for superintendence and repairs, including the 
sum required to complete repairs, under contract on the 15th November, 1856, 
(see laws, p. 203,) the sum of $189,803, or $39,803 over the amount of the con- 
tract price ; and $> 15,034 more than the actual average cost of this canal for six 
years, as ascertained by the Board, and reponed to the Senate ; or, for this year, 
$647 a mile — provided the appropriation is all used. 

COST OF OHIO CANAL IN 1856 

On this work, including Walhonding, the contractors are entitled, under the con- 
tracts for 1856, to $88,186, and if the small appropriations made in 1856 are all 
expended, then the cost would amount to less than $250 a mile, or about $23,000 
less than the annual cost for six years preceding the lettings. 

But let us compare the cost of the Miami and Erie Canal for the last six years, 
taking the estimate made out by the Board, (or rather by Mr. Steedman, the Acting 
Commissioner,) and exhibited to bidders as our starting point, and see how it looks 
along side of the cost of the same work at other times. 

The cost of Section No. 6, a year, for six years, was estimated at $45,974 

7, " " " " 168,689 



For each year $214,660 

In five years the cost would be $1,073,430 

By reference to the report of E. S. Hamlin, Samuel Forrer, and J. Biickensderfer, 
the Board, in 1849, (doc, No. 6 of that year, page 538, report of Board, page 
14,) it will be found that they give the cost per mile ol this Canal, for the five years 
from 1845 to 1849, inclusive, at $231 a mile. There are 293 miles in this Canal, 
and this would give the cost of this period of five years, $465,265, or for each year 
$93,053, while it is let to contractors at $150,000 a year, or for five years $750,- 
000, or $284,735 more, in five years, under the contracts, than they cost in the five 
years ending with 1849, counting nothing for a very heavy expense incurred on 
this line of Canal, in addition to the amount paid contractors for repairs, under the 
lettings. 



44 

The Following Table shows the comparative cost of the Ohio Canal, including 
the Walhonding, in all 357 miles, and the Miami and Erie Canal, 293 miles, 
for three periods of five years each ; giving the annual cost, per mile, of each 
period, and also the aggregate cost of each Canal for e?ch period, and also the 
names of the Acting Commissioner ; also the cost of each for 1855 and for 1856. 



Canal. 



Time. 



| Cos:: 
! Miles, per ! ^ ost a 



I Mile. 



Year. 



Cost in 5 Acting Commissioner's 
years. ] Name. 



Ohio 1845 to 1849 

Miami & Erie 1845 to 1849; 

Ohio.-. '1849 to 1854 

Miami & Erie 1849 to 1854 

< 
Ohio„___ 1856 to 1861 



Miami & Erie 



1856 to 1861 



Ohio for 1835 

Miami & Erie for 1855 

Ohio for 1856 

Miami & Erie for 1856 



357 322 106,904! 

293 321 84.053; 

357 316*112,932 

293 732*214,606. 



357 247* 
293 5 1* 



357 
293 



357 
293 



534,520 J. Blickensderfer. 
420,266;8amuel Forrer. 

564,625 G. W. Manypenny. (1) 
1.073,030 A. P. Miller. (2) 



88,180' 
150,000' 



444,990 Under contracts. 
750,000 " 



(3) 
(3) 



2 * 95.974 
766*224,445 



250* 
647* 



88,186 
189,803; 



(4) 
(4) 



. . ! J.Blickend'r, & Griswold. 
..J. B. Sfeedman. 

Under contracts. 



These results are all based upon data which we find in the reports made by the 
Board at different periods. As the cost for five years, from 1846 to 1849, is ob- 
tained by multiplying the length of each Canal by the cost per mile, as stated in 
the Report of the Board for the year 1849, as above cited. 

The cost, from 1854, is obtained by taking as the basis of the calculation the 
average cost of each section, as made out by each Commissioner, to exhibit to 
bidders. And the cost for five years, from 1856 to 1861, is based upon the amount 
to be paid to contractors, and a proximate estimate of the amount used in 1856, in 
addition to that paid contractors for repairs. 

In 1850 Mr. Blickensderfer was succeeded by Mr. Manypenny, who took charge 

of the Ohio Canal, and managed it till the 8th day of March, 1852, when the 

. Board, then consisting of G. W. Manypenny, A. P. Miller and James B. Steedman, 

divided the Works into three Sections, as the law then required, as follows. See 

Report for 1 852, page 2. 

To James B. Steedman was assigned " Division Number One," comprehending 
the following Works : 

The Miami and Erie Canal, from the Indiana State line to Manhattan ; the Six 
Mile Reservoir ; the Northern Division of the Ohio Canal from the city of Cleve- 
land to the first lock north of Roscoe ; the Walhonding Canal, and the Western 
Reserve and Maumee Road. 



*(1.) Mr. Blickensderfer served a parto! the year 1850 — perhaps from Fov. 15, 1849, to April 
1, 1850. "This calculation, Ac." See (2.) 

(2.) Samuel Forrer served in 1850, and till A.pril, 1851. This calculation is based on the re- 
ported annual average cost, a3 estimated by Messrs. Blickensderfer and Griswold on the Ohio, 
and Mr. Steedman on the M. and E., as shown to bidders. 

(3.) Based upon the assumption that the canals cost only what is paid contractors. 

(4} These are proximate estimates', but the M. and E. will be higher than here ehown. 



45 

To Alexander P. Miller, "Division Number Two/' consisting of the Miami and 
Erie Canal, from the city of Cincinnati to the Junction ; the Warren county Canal, 
Sidney Feeder, Mercer county Reservoir, and Lewistown Reservoir. 

To George W. Manypenny, " Division Number Three," consisting of the Middle 
and Southern Divisions of the Ohio Canal, from the first lock north of Roscoe to 
the Ohio river; the Hocking Canal, the Muskingum Improvement and National 
Road. 

Up to this time there had been but two Divisions and two Acting Commissioners, 
the third Commissioner being President of the Board, and non-acting. 

This Division continued substantially up to the time that Mr. Miller was suc- 
ceeded by Mr. Blickensderier, when the Miami and Erie Canal, from Toledo to 
Cincinnati, was all put under the charge of Mr. Steedman ; and Mr. blickensderfer 
took charge of the Ohio Canal to the Licking Dam. Report, 1854 — 5, Ex. Doc, 
part 1, p. 416 ; so that Mr. Miller and Mr. Steedman have, one or the other, or both 
together, had control of the Miami and Erie Canal, ever since Mr. Forrer was suo 
ceeded by Mr. Miller, the first of April, 1851. 

The disparity in the cost of the Ohio and the Miami and Erie Canals, is so man- 
ifest and so great, that it was impressed upon our minds that the latter must be the 
most expensive structure to keep in repair; and we inquired how many locks and 
dams, and aqueducts, and bridges there were in each, concluding that this would 
explain the difficulty ; but it only makes it worse. The history of the building of 
the Flat Rock Aqueduct, and cleaning out of the St. Mary's Basin, &c, point in 
the direction of the only explanation which we can concieve for this remarkable 
difference. 

An anecdote is told in the north-west, which will also aid in th« explanation. It 
appears that the genuineness of one of the Agents' partisanism was called in question, 
and it was replied that he was a true blue, and to prove it, the speaker is repre- 
sented to have said, " faith, an* didn't he give me fourteen dollars for filling up a 
howl in the tow-path only afoot square ?" 

TABLE, showing the number of Miles, the cost per Miie, tit the contract price, 
the number of Locks, Aqueducts, Bridges and Dams in each section ; and also, 
the number ot each on the Ohio Canal, and on the Miami and Erie — the Ohio 
including the Walhonding, 



Section 



No. 1 
" 2 
u 3 

« 4 

" o 

" 6 

M 7 

Ohio 
A & Erie 



Fror 



To 



Cleveland to Roscoe. 

Roscoe to Lockville.. 

Xockville to 0. River 

|1 locking Canal , 56 

'Muskingum Improv't. 

Toledo to la. S. Line. 

Junction to 0. River. 
M to Portsmouth 
to to Cincinnati 



1 * 


Cost 


^Q 


per 


a 


Mile. 


164 


167* 


79 


290* 


114 


330* 


56 


172* 


91 


274* 


88 


363*1 


*05 


575* 


367 


247*! 


293 


511*1 



Contract 
price. 


No. 
Locks. 


No. 
Aque- 
ducts. 


27,500 

22,980 

37,700 

9,650 


84 
45 
45 


6 

2 

8 



00( 1(3) 11 

32,00( J 33 

118,00 73 

17 1 

106 



No. 
Cul- 
ver s. 



(4) 
(4) 



1 
18 
16 



9 

56 

210 



(1) I9l (2) 65 



* (1.) 5 of these Anueduota an-. '10 feet long 

(ii.) Jn addil ! i are 100 email box wood oulvert4 , 

(3.) Befiides guard locks. 

(4.) Could not aseortain the number on oaoh seetioo. 



46 

This table shows that of hazardous structures, there are many more in the Ohio 
Canal, than on the Miami and Erie. 

When we undertook to compile the foregoing table, we supposed we should be 
able to find the necessary data with little trouole ; but we found it necessary to 
look through several volumes of re ports, "picking up one item here, and another there, 
and also tocall upon commissioners and engineers, and after all, we have not been 
able to get all. the items in : we consider accurate beyond doubt; but we 

are satisfied that the statements are all substantially correct. Steps should be taken 
to perfect a tabular statement like the above, extending it so as to show the lift of the 
locks, the lengrh oi aquedu - and dams, and the span oi culverts, &c. 

This sort of information is absolutely necessary, in order to carry cut the contract 
system, and we were : prised when we found there was no document in 

the office, : structures, considered 

hazardous, en the diffe >ns. Without this sort of information, there can 

be no competition in bidding ; or at least competition must be confined, as it was at 
the lal ected with the works, have the neces- 

sary knowledge, cr who have taken the pains, and incurred the expense, to inform 
themselves by a' personal inspection of the works. 

COST OF OHI r D1V :.GNS IN 1855. 

The followi :i ot the Northern and Southern 

Divisions of the Ohio Loading, in 1855, per mile, and in 

the aggrega Locks, Dams, Culverts and Aqueducts, 

on each di vi- 
ce & 

3 Spi 5*3 vr en 

Div 6 S \6>U § Name ol Commissioner. 

^ Z 



Northern. 32 44C 7 108 7 J. Blickensderfer. 

Southern 57,534 160 3 :"i 74 12 94 14 W . Griswold. 

jost of these Divisions, as reported 
by the Boa 3 >25, 429 ) The Northern Division 

extended from Cleveland t m, and the Southern Division from the 

dam to the Ohio River; and sks, dams, culverts and aqueducts, 

in ea mber of each, as reported by Dr. Griswold, 

as being in correct, and subtracting these numbers from the aggre- 

gate number of each on the entire canal, and crediting the remainder to the 
Northern Division, except where the Committee*knew the number in the Northern 
Division. The northern division includes the Walhonding. 

i AQUEDU 

Our attention has been called to this structure, and we have taken some deposi- 
tions which are fc ras built under the supervision of William J. Jack- 
son, as resident engineer, and James B. Steedman, Acting Commissioner. 

In their I oc. part 1. 1855, p. 419) the Board say in rela- 

tion to this i lote : 

** The Aqueduct over Big Flat Rock Creek, the largest and most costly structure 
on this division of canal, and like the one over Blue Creek, having heavy abut- 
ments of c as completed on the 8th day of May. After the water was let 



47 

in, but before any boats had passed through, this structure gave way, and became 
an entire wreck. The abutments, of the best quality of stone, were laid up in 
cement. The winter was one of unusual severity, and the masonry had to be laid 
up during the very coldest weather. This casuality is undoubtedly attributable to 
the cement being frozen, which destroyed its virtue and rendered it worthless. The 
immense pressure of the heavy embankment — thirty-five feet high — forced the 
south wall into the creek, carrying the superstructure down with it. Upon exami- 
nation, it was found necessary, to not only remove the superstructure and fallen 
abutment, but to take down twenty feet in height of the north abutment, which was 
drawn over at the top by the falling of the trunk. The south abutment had to be 
rebuilt from the foundation, and twenty feet put on the north abutment. The 
superstructure was rendered worthless, and was burned up, as the cheapest way to 
get rid of it. The removal of the fallen materials cost as much as they were worth. 
In repairing this work, more than three thousand cubic yards of stone, and thirty 
thousand yards of earth, were bandied. The superstructure is entirely new, and 
the timber was all taken out of the woods, and the plank sawed while the walls 
were being laid up. The new structure was built and navigation resumed in forty- 
five days. It is believed to be well constructed, of the most durable materials, and 
permanently secured. It cost about thirty-one thousand dollars. 

"The boatmen and forwarders were clamorous for a temporary structure by which 
navigation would be hastened ; but the Board believed the best interests of the 
State required the erection of a permanent one, and acted accordingly. They have 
now no doubt of the correctness of their action, and believe it is generally conceded, 
even by those who, at first, differed from thena." 

The depositions of Silas W. Logan, and A. Huff, Nos. 41, 42, 43, and John G. 
Isham, No 44, will show that " this casualty," the falling oi this structure, after 
it had been rebuilt at a very heavy expense, and before a single boat had passed 
it — " is undoubtedly attributable " to gross negligence or fraud in the contractor, 
and those whose business it was to oversee them. The above paragraph from the 
repoit of the Board, gives a glowing description of the rebuilding of this structure 
after it fell down. The testimony of Silas W. Logan (dep. 43) shows how it came 
that the building of an aqueduct 60 feet long, cost $31,000. It was by keeping a 
horde of bosses and supernumaries about the work. The testimony of Mr. Logan 
puts these matters in a very startling light. The strongest comments we can make 
would not do the subject justice ; they would dilute the testimony, and we close our 
remarks upon it by referring to the testimony of Logan and Huff, Nos. 41, 42, 43. 
This testimony shows that the contractors defrauded the State in a most shameful 
manner; and that in rebuilding the work the management was outrageously bad, 
and grossly fraudulent with all. 

BLUE CREEK AQUEDUCT. 

** The Blue Creek Aqueduct, with heavy cut stone abutments, is also a sub 
tial and permanent structure. After the completion of this Aqueduct, much diffi- 
culty was experienced, and a heavy expense incurred, in keeping up the embank- 
ments at the ends of the trunk of the Aqueduct. When the water was let in, the 
banks commenced settling and sliding, and continued to slide f 
requiring the employment of a large force d 
culty was overcome, however, and the banks are now . lant." 

The above extract in relation to this work is from the ,1 §or 

1855— Ex. Doc. part 1, page 418, 419. 

The testimony of S, W. Logan (No. 43) shows very plain! \ 
resulted from th< " ll0 dirt wm 



48 

filled in on ice, and old timber, and old barrels were (hi stone abut- 

ments were n uneven .-eked 

properly, and hence ■.'■ I :sed trouble and expense. 

PAYMENT TO JAMES B. STEEDMAtf FOR STONE. 

In February I " was $500 paid to J. B. Steedman for stone. These 

; -pre find, m 

to his 
son, H. H. Fc ..man. 

Mr. R. A owner of 

the M Roch - 
he was allowed 1 1 

limber taken an: lesf n made 

to him be:. 

We rat have not oeen 

iward was 
made 

"To amend an?. [Passed 

.] 
Szc. 4. The Be ad use any 

stone. 

Bonsti their 

opinion, or i 
in the 
per: : : 
use i i 

said Board, 

Szc. 5. 
Boar 

suits for all viola 

for all dam : any 

pror : :;."' 

Ai 

I 
been 
man^ 
award 

! 
far six 

of P. ito, and the 

money 
The 
pay 

pay damag 

conn am is 

still left, as the fellows 



49 

large pails of milk ; and it is considered almost as good as any other farm on the 
river, in its neighborhood. Mr. Steedman bought it for $2,800, and received 
$2,200 of the award for damage to the water power, and the $500 received from 
the State, leaves him only $100 out of pocket for the farm ; and besides the stone 
sold to the State, we were informed that he sold several boat loads to a railroad 
company, who wanted them to protect an embankment. 

We know it has been claimed, that no compensation had been made to the 
owner, for the occupation of the land by the stone. We feel confident that the 
award book, if found, will show a different state of facts — for it is not reasonable 
to suppose that the State would pay a large sum for stone, which it must, from the 
very necessities of the case, take years to remove, for the State used them only as 
they appeared to be needed, at different points, to protect embankments, without 
securing the right to occupy the land until the stone were removed. This view is 
the more probable, from the fact that this stone was worthless to the owner of the 
land, until since the building of a railroad has made a demand for small quantities 
of it. 

The following is Mr. Steedman's receipt for this $500 : 

February 9th, 1852. 
Received of Alex. P. Miller, acting commissioner, by the hands of John G. 
Isham, superintendent of repairs on the eastern div. M. & E. canal, five hundred 
dollars, for 2000 perches of (25 cu. feet ea.) protection stone deposited on my 
farm, and purchased by order of acting commissioner, at 25 cts. per perch. 
$500. (Signed) JAMES B. STEEDMAN. 

This receipt is dated Feb. 9, 1852, and Mr. Steedman went into office on the 15th 
of the same month, and took charge of this canal. 

It is not our intention, in any of the foregoing remarks, to discredit the. testimony 
of K. A. Forsythe. We have not a particle of doubt but that he stated the facts 
just as he recollected them. He can have no interest in doing otherwise. 

A. L. Backus, who was the Resident Engineer in charge of the canal upon which 
this stone was used, when he received a dispatch from A. P. Miller, in relation to 
this stone, replied, saying he was not aware that James B. Steedman owned any 
stone, and he was well acquainted with this " Roche de Beuf " farm, and the stone 
pile on it. His answer to Mr. Miller, in relation to the stone, we found on file in 
the office of the Board of Public Works, and we subjoin an extract : 

Maumee City, Feb. 3, 1852. 

Col. A. P. Miller — Dear Sir : I received a telegraphic dispatch from you 
this afternoon, "wishing to know whether we had use for 2,000 perches of the 
stone belonging to J. B. Steedman, and if so send me a certificate at 25 cts. per 
perch." 

If the name had been S. II. Steedman, instead of J. B. Steedman, I could have 
understood your enquiry at once. I am not aware that J as. B. Steedman owns 
any stone, therefore I concluded that there must be some mistake about the 
dispatch. I shall, therefore, await further instructions, and "light on the subject.'' 

(Signed) A. L. BACKUS. 

This is all the "light" we are able to throw on this transaction. 
ST. MARY'S BASIN. 

In the winter of 1851-52, William Sawyer A: 0o. took a contract to clean out 
the St. Mary's Basin, and our attention was called to an alleged over-estimate of 
the work, and we called on John W. Envin, the Resident Engineer on the Miami 

4 — rep. joint com. run. WORKS. 



50 

and Erie Canal South of, and including this basin, and he says he saw the basin, 
and the dirt which came out of it, and also that his superintendent, Lambert, gave 
him the dimensions, of it, and he estimated the amount of dirt taken out at 1,350 
cubic yards, allowing that one foot of dirt was taken out over the whole area of 
the basin. He also testified that he saw the bid of Sawyer & Co., and that they 
were to have not less than 20, nor more than 22 cents per cubic yard. Taking the 
highest price named by Mr, Envin, as the true one, this 1,350 yards would come to 
less than $300. 

On the 19th February, Mr. Sawyer wrote a letter to the Board, which letter we 
found on file in the office of the Board, from which the following is an extract : 

St. Maeys, Feb. 19, 1852. 
Dear Col.: Inclosed I send you a certificate for $1,153 68 for work done on 
the canal this winter. I have had a hard and a dirty job. 

A. P. Miller, B. P. W. (Signed) WM. SAWYER. 

By reference to the check book, we find that on March 2, 1852, a check was 
issued to W. Sawyer & Co., for cleaning out St. Mary's Basin, $1,153 68 ; so that 
if we take Mr. Erwin's estimates as correct (No- 39), Sawyer & Co. got at least 
$800 more for this work than they were entitled to. It is a matter worthy of 
consideration, whether the money drawn from the treasury on the false, and, without 
doubt, fraudulent estimate of Wallace, shall be suffered to remain in the hands of 
Sawyer & Co., without an effort to recover it. 

It is due to the acting commissioner, A. P. Miller, to say that he discharged 
Wallace, after he was detected in these feauds. He had, however, been in office 
about a year before he was dismissed. 

MANNER OF BIDDING. 

By reference to the depositions of S. M. Young, and Thomas Miller, No. 15 
and 16, it will be found that the same company put in several bids. S. M. Young, 
put in four on Section No. 6, in different names ; and the contractors for deepen- 
ing and widening the Lancaster side cut, put in four bids, one in the name of each 
member of the firm. This mode of bidding, under the system of allowing bidders 
to withdraw, is very objectionable, and ought to be prevented in future biddings. 
Its designs are bad, and its effects unfair to other bidders, and it is a premeditated 
wrong upon the State. Say that A, B, C, D, represent the company 
bidding on the side cut. They put in bids in the names of A, B, C & D, ranging 
from the lowest figure at -which they think they can do the work, up to any price 
they may think fit to name. When the bids are opened, they then withdraw all 
that are below any other bidder, save the one next below the lowest bid put in by 
any other person. But it is not necessary to say more about it. A very simple 
remedy for it all, would be to do as Mr. Blickensderfer desired in the case, of the 
bids for repairs ; that is to make each bidder disclose all names of persons inter- 
ested, or to be interested in the bids. This should, perhaps, be done by affidavit 
accompanying the bid. If this were done, and the practice of allowing bids to be 
withdrawn prohibited, it would prevent it generally or always. 

WITHDRAWING BIDS. 

The practice of allowing bids to be withdrawn, is certainly pernicious. No 
doubt if this had not been allowed, Section No. 6, would have been taken by John 
C. Allen & Co., (Mr. Allen, we believe, was not personally knowing to this matter,) 
at $24,C00 per annum ; for Young says in his deposition, that he had determined 



51 

to have it any how, or words to that import, and though he modified this point 
somewhat on a subsequent examination, we are still forced to believe that he wouldt 
have taken it as the $24,000. Section No. 8, would undoubtedly have been taken 
by 0. White, he says in his deposition his bid was high enough at 83,730. 

The practice of allowing bids to be withdrawn is an "exercise of discretion," 
that it seem to us, was not contemplated by the law. In the case of Young, the 
bids were all written by him, and though he says he disguised his hand in two of 
them, yet that they were all written by the same hand is so manifest, on inspec- 
tion, that it appears strange that the Board were deceived, especially as its Presi- 
dent was the neighbor of Mr. Young, and most probably knew his hand writing. 
At any rate he had reason to know that Young & Co., put in a bid, and the fact 
that there was four bids all in the same hand writing, should have led to inquiry 
before any were allowed to be withdrawn. 

On the side cut, William Hughes put in a bid, which, he says, was not put in 
in good faith, but to make money by a withdrawal. He understood perfectly, that 
bidding amounted to nothing, under the usages of the Board, and he saw a chance 
for a little sharp practicer, and he pitched in just as a whole-souled Irishman 
would, and he made it win to the extent of 8300. (See his deposition.) 

BUYING OFF BIDDERS. 

It has already been stated that the contractors on No. 6 and 8, bought off 
bidders. This Hughes bid on the side cut, though not made in good faith, was 
bought of for $300, by the company that did the work. The law should be so 
changed as to break up this kind of sham bidding. An effectual remedy would 
be to require a bond for the performance of the work to accompany the bid, coupled 
with the condition that if the bidder withdrew, he should pay the difference 
between his bid, and that of the ne::t lowest, who was willing to take it. Or if 
the practice of permitting the withdrawal of bids was discontinued, and the bond 
for the performance put in with the bid, and the acceptance of the bid closing the 
contract, it would be all that is required. This is said merely by way of sugges- 
tion. There may be better ways of reaching the same end. But something should 
be done to secure the State against this kind of wrongs. 

ENGINEERS BIDDING. 

As hereinbefore stated, three of the engineers in the employment of the Board, 
to wit : Saml. G. Foster, Lewis W. Sifford, and Abener L. Backus, were inter- 
ested in bids. But as explained by Mr. Foster, he had written a resignation, and 
handed it to Mr. Griswold, and it appears Mr. Sifford intended to resign if his com- 
pany got contracts enough to justify it, and it is only fair to suppose" Mr. Backus 
would have done the same if his firm had got a contract. It is manifestly im- 
proper for t; an agent to take upon himself an incompatible duty. He should have 
no adverse employment. (Kent 2, 790.) It is scarcely necessary to sul^c ist that 
this should be prohibiied in future. 

It hardly need be suggested that the law should be so framed as to put an effec- 
tual stop to engineers or other officers connected with the Work's bidding. 
law is now silent on this point. 

REDUCTION OF TOLLS. 

The tolls of Joram Petree, on his line of packets, from Toledo io the State line, 
were reduced under such circumstances as to east suspicion on Mr. SteedmaD 
was alleged that Mr. Petree paid money to secure the reduction. We addreased a 

letter to Mr. Petree on the subject, at Little Kails, j\. v., hut received no answer. 



52 

We were refered to others for information, and their testimony did not show that 
any money had passed into Mr. Steedman's hands, either diaectly or indirectly, or 
that any money had been used to influence his decision in regard to the reduction 
of Petree's tolls. 

LOCK NO. 31— SOUTH OF LICKING SUMMIT. 

This is a new lock, built under the charge of Mr. Griswold, as Acting Commis- 
sioner, and S. W. SifFord, resident engineer. It was thought it cost too much 
money to have been fairly conducted. W. Hughs was the contractor. We exam- 
ined Mr. Sifford and Mr. Hughes, under oath, in relation to it, and conversed freely 
with others, and there was nothing elicited to give color to the charge of unfairness 
or unfaithfulness on the part of Mr. Griswold or Mr. Sifford. 

The lock cost about $20,000, which is a large sum, but the lock is a most sub- 
stantial structure ; and, to add to its cost, it rained a great deal during its construc- 
tion, and it became frightfully sickly. The navigation was suspended at that point, 
and the State had drays employed to haul the freight around the lock ; and this 
consideration made it necessary to push on the work, even at an increased cost.. 

LANCASTER SIDE-CUT. 

A very considerable proportion of the work done by the contractors, for deepening 
and widening the Lancaster Side- Cut, was work which the contractors for repairing 
Section No. 4 should have done. There should have been an accurate survey and 
estimate of the work which this contractor was bound to do under his contract, and 
he should have been compelled to do it before the contractors for deepening and 
widening began their work. These remarks are not intended to prejudice in any 
way the interests of the contractors for deepening and widening. Certainly it was 
no fault of theirs if they were compeled by the officers having charge of the work 
to take out large quantities of the worst mud and repair the worst places on the 
whole of Section 4. 

There was here a very manifest error, and it is for you to see if it can be 
remedied. 

CLAIM OF LINE, CLARK & BROSIER. 

The above named firm have been pressing a claim for a balance which they say 
is due them on contract for graveling the tow-path. 

Michael Wallace, who is so unfavorably spoken of in relation to his measurement 
of the St. Mary's Basin, made the estimates, and we are assured by Mr. Backus, 
resident engineer for some years on the Northern Division of the Miami and Erie 
Canal, and whose term of office expired in February, 1856, that the estimates of 
this gravel, made out by Wallace, are erroneous, and, that instead of the State's 
owing them, they owe the State. We did not take any testimony in relation to this 
claim, but we have learned enough about it to satisfy us that it should be subjected 
to a very close scrutiny. 

In a letter, dated at Maumee City, February 2, 1853, Mr. Backus thus speaks 
of this claim : 

" Col. A. P. Miller : — I send you herewith a long and detailed statement of the 
condition of Line, Clark & Brozier's contract, and ask for it a careful perusal, that 
you may have still another evidence of the outrageous and inexcusable negligence 
of Wallace, in not detecting the fraud perpetrated upon the State in two ways ; one 
by the awful loads carried, (in boats,) and the other in double entry." 

We append the substance of a statement made by Mr. Backus, which we found 
on file in the office of the Board. 



53 

Statement of Line, Clark & Brosier, contract for furnishing Gravel to the 
Miami and Erie Canal : 

R. Griffith's first measurement, 1,313.10 cubic yards, @ 72c $ yd 8 945 43 

second " 1,444,41 " " 1,039 98 

L.S.Bradford's first " 5,121.09 " " 3,687 18 

C.C.Marshall's first " 4,390.65 " " 3,161 27 

second " 733.12 " " 528 35 



TotaL... — ^9,362 21 

CERTIFICATES issued. 

Certificates issued by M. Wallace $7,078 35 

" " A. L. Backus - 2,908 68 

To railroad and fixtures 500 00 

Total $10,487 04 

Overpaid (and due State) $1,124 00 

In another letter to A. P. Miller, dated Maumee City, Dec. 18, 1852, Mr. Backus 
thus speaks of this same claim : 

"Although by my estimates I make a saving to the State of $1,530 93, yet 
there is due from the contractors, to the State, $1,124 83, showing an over-issue 
of certificates by Wallace of $2,655 76." 

This claim should never be allowed, nor money appropriated to pay it, without a 
thorough sifting. 

CLAIM OF WARD, GORDON & BLAIR. 

This is a claim which the above named company are pressing to a decision, 
growing ont of contracts on their part, to re-build sonr wooden Locks. Wallace, 
the engineer named in connection with the St. Marys Basin, and the claim Line, 
Clark & Brosier, made the estimates, and there appears to be good reason to 
uspcct fraud, and the whole matter should be searched to the bottom before a 
dollar is appropriated to pay it. 

In a letter to A. P. Miller, from Maumee City, Dec. 18, 1852, by Mr. Backus, 
he thus speaks in relation to this claim : 

" Aside from Mr. Jackson, no one can know better than yourself, that the 
estimates were most universally liberal and generous, and indeed extravagant ; for 
of necessity we were compelled to adopt Wallace's estimates, for some of the items 
beyond our knowledge, and God knows they were of a character of extravagance 
only known to that corrupt and unfaithful public officer." 

SUPERINTENDENT'S ACCOUNTS. 

Some complaints were made against Superintendents of Repairs, and some of the 
committee examined carefully, and in detail, several superintendent's accounts, as 
they appear in the office of the Board. Those which were examined with most 
care, were John Laughhead, Vance P. Bonham, James Moore, J. 0. Springer, on 
the Ohio ("anal, and Patrick Branan on the Muskingum, They all were found 
correct. There were charges of a somewhat serious nature, made against William 
Hughes, and some others, but we round on inquiry and investigation, that if any 
thing had been done which was wrong, it had been by hiring hands and taking 
receipts from them for more work than thev had done, and though this 
charged, we were not able to iind any evidence to support the charge, 



54 

We did not deem it a matter promising much good to the State, to inquire into 
the abuses of a system which had been entirely swept away by the contract system, 
unless that system was to be returned to, and this we did not presume, for as 
elsewhere stated more at length, we think the contract system, on the whole, if 
properly guarded, the most economical, and least liable to abuse, and hence ought 
to be adhered to. 

WARREN COUNTY CANAL. 

This is a matter in which the people along its line feel a deep interest, and there 
is a very general desire that something should be done by the State, to settle the 
rights of parties definitely. By reference to the report of the Board, of last year, it 
will be found that it has been sold to John A. Corwin and R. H. Hendrickson, under 
an act passed April 29, 1854. By the terms of the proviso to the first section of 
that act, it seems the State required " that by such sale, transfer or release, the 
State shall not incur any debt or liability for damage, in any way whatever." The 
object of this proviso, evidently, was to secure indemnity from the purchasers, 
against "existing claims" for damages, which the Board say in the report just 
cited, amount to over 830,000. 

In the bid of Corwin & Hendrickson, they propose to indemnify the State against 
the payment of these claims, by a mortgage on the property purchased. This 
would be very poor indemnity, at best. We refer to this subject, merely to'call it 
to the attention of the Legislature. If the State is not indemnified against these 
claims for damages, then it has received no benefit from the sale, and unless it can 
be discharged from these liabilities, it misses its only object, in making the sale. 
We express no opinion as to the present validity of the contract, but suggest that it 
should be inquired into, and that if the contract is not binding, or if Corwin & 
Hendrickson will reconvey it to the State, that the State make some arrangement 
about it which will relieve it from liability, and at the same time setttle the rights 
of all the parties interested. 

It would have been wise to require releases of all claims for damages against the 
State, as a condition precedent to the transfer, and if the State again takes the 
control of it, this should be seen to, before it is again surrendered. 

WATER RENTS. 

There is an evident want of efficiency in the collection of the water rents. We 
have not examined the facts and the law with sufficient care to be able to say in 
what particulars the law needs amendment, nor who are justly chargeable with delin- 
quency in this matter ; and we mention it merely for the purpose of calling the at- 
tention of the Legislature to the subject. It is a matter of importance and should 
receive prompt attention. 

THE NATIONAL ROAD. 

MODIFICATION OF LEASE. 

Under authority of a statute passed May 1 1854, the Board of Public Works leased 
the National road to Samuel G. Foster, Samuel Doyle and Joseph Cooper for the 
term of ten years from the first day of June, 1854, for the sum of 86105 per year, 
to be paid in semi-annual payments. (See Ex. Doc. part 1, 1855, p. 622.) About 
the 29th day of December, 1855, the Lesees petitioned the Board to modify the 
lease, alleging as their ground of claim that "before and at the time" of their 
taking said lease a " toll sheet," purporting to contain a tabular statement of the 
tolls chargeable on said road, and that all coaches, (without stating any exception 
of those carrying the mail,) were chargeable with toll, and that they believing that 



55 

all coaches were so chargeable, and having been misled by said toll sheet, have 
agreed to give more than they would have otherwise done. And they represent 
hat they never knew that mail coaches were exempt from" tolls till after th- lease 
Was made ; and in view of the facts set forth they pray for an equitable modifica- 
tion of said contract. (lb. 624.) 

It appears that the petitioners consulted able counsel, whose opinions in writing 
were submitted to the Board. It also seems that some of the Board had consulted 
the Attorney General, (M'Cook,) and also (Kimbal) the late Attorney General," 
about the proposed modification, and that both agreed in the opinion that the Board 
had no power over the case. Their opinions were given verbally. Notwithstanding 
both Attorneys General agreed in the opinion that the Board had no power, (Ex. 
Doc, part 1, 1855, p. 621,) yet on the 15th February, 1856, the following entry 
was made upon the minutes of the Board, record 5, p. 521 : 

MODIFICATION OF LEASE OF THE NATIONAL ROAD. 

In the matter of the application of Cooper, Doyle & Foster to have their lease 
of the National Road modified, Mr. Steedman offered the following for adoption : 

" Ordered, That the contract of lease between the State of Ohio and Cooper, 
Doyle & Foster for the National Road, be and the same is hereby modified, so as 
to allow the said Cooper, Doyle & Foster, an amount equal to the tolls which they 
would be entitled to receive on coaches and other vehicles carrying the mail on the 
National Road, but for the exemption of such coaches and vehicles from the pay- 
ment of tolls under the compact between the State of Ohio and the United States, 
and that the amount so to be allowed shall be ascertained by the Board of Public 
Works, and certified to the Auditor of State, and be applied in part payment of the 
rent of said road, payable by said Cooper, Doyle & Foster, to the State of Ohio, by 
the term of said lease. Provided, That the said Cooper, Doyle & Foster shall re- 
renew their securities to the State to the satisfaction of the Board of Public Works.' ' 

The question being taken, it was decided as follows : Yeas — Griswold and Steed- 
man ; Nay — Blickensderfer. 

Nothing has subsequently been done by the Board to ascertain the amount of 
deduction to be made, so that, practically, the modification has not yet taken effect, 
and can not without some further action of the Board. 

We shall not touch the equity of the case, as made out in the petitiou of the 
lessees. But we wish to call attention to the question of the power of the Board to 
make such a modification. It looks to us very like an " exercise of discretion " not 
" contemplated by the law." 

The Board were empowered by the Legislature to lease the National Road. They 
did as they only could do. They let it according to law. What power had they 
over it after they had leased it? Had they not exhausted their power ? What 
statute authorized them to exercise judicial functions, and sitting as a court of 
equity, to make an equitable modification of this contract on an exparte hearing ! 
Could they do it without statutory authority ? Would it do to presume that they 
had equity jurisdiction in the face of the historical fact that such jurisdiction has 
always been confined to another tribunal ? This jurisdiction having been confined 
to the courts exclusively, the presumption is conclusive that no other officers or 
boards of officers can, without express authority, take jurisdiction of equitable oases. 
If they may, where is the limit of their power in this regard ? There is no limit 
but their own unlimited discretion. If they may modify a contract in an equitable 
case, they must also be the judges as to whether cases are equitable ; an I certainly 
all the intricate questions of equity, jurisdiction and procedure are much safer with 
the judiciary than with the Board ol Public Works 

As a precedent, this action of the Board is highly important. If their action be 



56 

acquiesced in, it may be only the opening wedge to other assumptions of power, if 
it be an assumption of power, and it may lead on to other more serious modifications 
of contracts, until the power to modify contracts shall lead to the very abuse which 
it was the intention of Section 29, Art. II. of the Constitution to prevent. The 
Coastitution says, "No extra compensation shall be made to any officer, public 
agent, or contractor, after the service shall have been rendered, or the contract entered 
into, * * * * unless such compensation or claim be allowed by two-thirds 
of the members elected to each branch of the General Assembly." To deduct 
from the amount due under the contract of lease on the National Road operates 
exactly as an "extra compensation " to a "contractor," and is certainly within the 
mis chief contemplated, and which was to be remedied by the Constitution. 

I* these contractors have a good equitable case, one on which a court could grant 
relief, the courts are open to them, and if it be not such a case as a court can 
relieve, then the Legislature, if it be a really meritorious case, one it should grant 
relief in, would be likely to do it on a proper presentation of the facts. 

CHARGES OF CORRUPTION AGAINST THE MEMBERS OF THE 

BOARD. 

We have taken no testimony that discloses a positively fraudulent intention on 
the part of the members of the Board, except some acts of Mr. Steedman, at the 
re-building of the Flatrock aqueduct ; and these in our opinion, are so palpably 
fradulent that we cannot feel justified in omitting to call special attention to them. 
Silas W. Logan, testifies that a large number of men were kept in the pay of the 
State, who were idle for the larger portion of the time they were engaged in re- 
building that aqueduct ; and that it was done under the eye of Mr, Steedman ; 
some of them drunk and unfit for business a large portion of the time, under his 
eyes, and yet receiving pay for all the time. Mr. Logan also testifies that he was 
required to employ a man named Stubet, after he had dismissed him because he 
was worthless as a hand, and after he had told Mr. Steedman that Stubet was 
worthless ; and he was accordingly employed -and paid for the whole time. The 
testimony is pointed and positive as to these acts, and we deem what we have said 
all that is necessary. (See No. 43.) 

CONDITION OF CANALS. 

Much complaint has been made of the condition of some portions of the canals. 
These complaints were chiefly confined to tho Muskingum Improvement, the Hock- 
ing Canal, the south end of the Ohio Canal, and the Miami and Erie Canal, from 
the junction of the Ohio River. In some places the canal has been suffered to fill 
up, and the water has been raised in the levels, in some places to the very brink of 
the embankments, and a little rooting by a hog would in places start a breach. 
We saw the water overrunning the embankments in one place. This was, how- 
ever, caused in part, by the canal's filling up with grass ; an evil which has be- 
come one of great magnitude of late years. 

As a general rule we have found the least complaint on those portions of the 
work which we have found by an examination of the reports to have cost the least. 
But as we suppose the Board will inform you at length as to the condition of the 
works, we will add nothing more on this topic, only that it will require a very 
energetic administration of the Public Works to prevent portions of them from 
falling into ruin. 



57 

RIGHT OF ACTION OF THE CONTRACTORS. 

As is elsewhere shown there is no right of action against the State. It would 
perhaps be no more than right that the Legislature should give the parties having 
these contracts who have acted in good faith, a right of action in case these con- 
tracts should be disaffirmed, this will give them all the rights as against the State 
which they could claim as against individuals. 

CONCLUSION. 

We have now said all we intend to say in relation to the matters of investigation 
which huve been before us. The results of our labors are before you. They 
may be meager, and of no great value to the State. It is not for us to estimate 
them. But we do know that our labors have been difficult, discouraging and ar- 
duous, and we have felt that our responsibilities were many and weighty. If we 
have felt like shrinking from the discharge of its duties from a consciousness of our 
inability to meet, properly the requirements of the post, we have been encouraged, 
out of respect for the judgments of those who appointed us to hope that, we might 
be mistaken, and we have gone on, doing to the best of our ability, what we con- 
sidered right, and however we may have failed to fulfill your expectations, we are 
at least conscious of good endeavors. 

Our constant aim has been to do nothing that did not promise to be useful to 
the State. An inquiry into the past management of the Public Works can only be 
useful to correct those errors which may not have been so far consummated but 
that they admit of at least a partial remedy ; or for the purpose of drawing lessons 
from the stores of experience in guiding our action in relation to them in the future. 

Many matters have been suggested to us which have received no attention, further 
than to satisfy us that the State was to receive no benefit from their investigation. 
We have not felt it our duty to tear the scabs from sores which were so nearly 
healed that they had quit hurting, and are fogotten. For this we may be faulted, 
for there are those who would have been pleased to engage us in such jobs. 

Again we have constantly aimed to avoid using our very ample powers to put 
private persons into positions before the public which were embarrassing or painful 
to them, when the public good did not seem to demand it. And this will explain 
why many things do not appear in the testimony, which many may expect to find 
there. Sometimes persons told us part of a transaction, which appeared suspicious, 
and when we had searched to the bottom, and found it was no way connected with 
the doings of the Board of Public Works, on their agents, but was a matter of such 
a character as would subject the individual to annoying criticism, we have uni- 
formly omitted the whole of it. 

The testimony herein contained, as to the conduct of the Board in regard to 
these lettings, is nenrly all that of the personal and political friends of Mr. Steedman, 
the Commissioner most censured in the transaction. We thought his friends much 
more likely to know how he had acted, whether fraudulently or not, than his 
enemies, and we sought their testimony to the exclusion of others, being determined 
not to seek or to be satisfied with anything short of the best evidence within our 
reach. If any member of the Board had done any fraudulent act, had received a 
bribe, or anything of that sort, some one must know it beside the Commissioner, 
and we have never failed to go to those on whom public rumor concentrated as the 
person most likely to know all about it, and examine them. 

We have not, if we have understood ourselves, desired to convict any one of 
peculation or fraud. We have not been able to see the good that was to grow out 
of a course which would tend to increase suspicion or inflame prejudice. It can 
certainly do the commonwealth no good to sap the foundations of public confidence, 
by making the people believe their agents are worse than they really are, and have 



§8 

been guilty of high crimes and deep conniptions, when milder words will describe 
their conduct. Groundless charges of corruption must necessarily tend to the 
demoralization of public sentiment. When censurers are indiscriminate they lose 
their power to restrain official misconduct, and often deter men the most truly trust- 
worthy, from accepting any public position. Laxness should not be encouraged by 
a want of scrutiny, yet men should not be detered from accepting office by unjust 
assaults upon official conduct, for the people that tolerates this will not long find 
just and capable men willing to serve them. 

While we have not intentionally done any thing, nor omitted to do any thing to 
shield a culprit, or to smoothe over acts which we have deemed illegal, yet we have 
tried not to give unnecessary alarm to the people, or to do injustice to those whose 
conduct has been the subject of investigation, by exaggerating into flagrant crimes 
the various acts which we condemn in plain words as unlawful. We have aimed 
to get out the facts as they exist, in order that the General Assembly and the people 
may approve or censure with that just discrimination which is due to truth and to 
each individual whose conduct is examined. 

If we have extended our argument so that it may appear tedious, our only excuse 
is that we thought the importance of the subject demanded that we should not say 
less. As a precedent, the action of the Legislature, with regard to these contracts, 
becomes of the most significant importance. If these contracts be affirmed by the 
Legislature, it will look very much like throwing down the reins of Government 
and saying to the agents of the State — drive where you will, the Legislature will tax 
the -people to foot the bills. If they be disowned, it is to be hoped that it will serve 
as an admonition to the agents of the State, in future, and those who deal with 
them, which can hardly fail to produce beneficial results. 

All of which is respectfully submitted, 

C, S. HAMILTON, 
PAUL WEATHERBEE, 
JOHK A. BLAIR. 

Columbus, January 8, 1857. 



COMMUNICATION 



BOARD OEPUBLIC WORKS 



IN ANSWER TO THE RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE RELATIIVE TO THE 
PUBLIC WORKS OF THE STATE. 



Office of the Board of Public Works, 
Columbus, Ohio, March 29, 1856. 

Hon. Thos. H. Ford, President of the Senate : 

Sir — In answer to the resolution of the Senate, requiring the Board of Public 
Works "to furnish to the Senate, forthwith, a full and detailed statement of the 
items of the price or cost of keeping the Public Works of the State in repair, for 
the six years next preceding the 15th day of November, A. D., 1854, excluding 
all items of expenditures not appertaining to repairs, and such as the present con- 
tractors are not bound by their contracts to perform ; and that they give separately 
the price or cost of each section, as divided and numbered for the recent letting ; 
and that the statements of each section be furnished separately as fast as the same 
shall be respectively completed," — the Board herewith transmit statements of the 
items of expenditure on Sections Four, (4) Five, (5) and Six, (6) as required by 
said resolution. 

By order of the Board. 

J. BLICKENSDERFER, Jr., 

President B'd of Pah. Works. 



60 



SECTION NO. 4— HOCKING CANAL. 
Expenditures from the 15th of November, 1848, to the 15th of November, 1854. 



1848. 


Dec. 


7, 


1849. 


Feb. 


17, 


Feb. 


21, 


April 

tt 


28, 


May 


15, 

a 


July 


16, 


tt 


19, 


Sept. 


8, 


a 


8, 


Nov. 


15, 


ti 


" 



For the year ending Nov. \hth t 1849. 
D. W. Crook- 



D. W. Crook- 
Joshua Clark. 
D. W. Crook. 

J.Clark 

do 

D. W. Crook. 

J. Clark 

D. W. Crook. 

J. Clark 

D.W. Crook- 
J. Clark—.- 
D. W. Crook . 



Superintendence and Repairs 



do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 



$300 00 



do 


1,200 00 


do 


1,100 00 


do 


700 00 


do 


600 00 


do 


450 00 


do 


850 00 


do 


400 00 


do 


300 00 


do 


500 00 


do 


700 00 


do 


945 87 


do 


1,809 64 



Amount™ 89,855 51 



1849. 
Dec. 6, 

1850, 
Feb. 19, 



Mar. 25, 

April 17, 

May 20, 

tt a 

July 16, 

" 17, 

Aug. 31, 

Sept. 6, 

6, 

Nov. 15, 



For the year ending Nov, \bth, 1850. 
D.W. Oook Superintendence and Repairs 



J.Clark. 

do __. 

D.W.Crook 

do 

J. Clark 

D.W. Crook 

J. Clark „...__. 

do 

D. W. Crook 

J. Clark 

D.W. Crook 

John C. Rainey__. 
Dennis McCarthy 
Daniel Sifford & Co 

do do 
do do 
J. C. Rainey . 



do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 



do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 



Rebuilding culvert at Hock' 
ing Falls 

Superintendence and Repairs 

Rebuild'g cul. at Hock'g Falls 

do do do 



8200 00 

606 29 
200 00 
126 12 
250 00 
300 00 
300 00 
400 00 
2,560 00 
850 00 
526 86 
504 34 
554 33 
649 47 

200 00 
1,262 95 

140 88 
1,434 33 



Amount . 



Amount carried forward - $20,921 08 



$11,065 57 



61 



HOCKING CANAL— Continued. 



1851. 
Jan'y 21, 
Feb. 15, 



Mar. 
May 


13, 
15, 


Aug, 


15, 


Nov. 


15, 



For the year ending Nov. \5th t 1851. 



Corporat'n of Lan'r 

J. C. Rainey 

Dennis McCarthy. 

J. C. Rainey 

Dennis McCarthy. 

J. C. Rainey 

Dennis McCarthy. 

J. C. Rainey 

Dennis McCarthy. 

J. C. Rainey 

do 

Dennis McCarthy. 



For building culvert 

Superintendence and Repairs 
do do 

do do 

do do 

do do 

do do 

do do 

do do 

do do 

do do 

do do 



8650 35 
739 93 
481 75 
200 00 
200 00 
600 00 
606 58 
715 63 
814 42 
872 05 
659 37 
839 85 



Amount _ $7,379 93 



1852. 
Jan'y 9, 
9, 
Feb. 16, 



May 1 5, 

it tt 

<t t< 

June 29 ; 

tt a 

Aug. 16, 



For the year ending Nov. 15th, 1852. 



Dennis McCarthy. 
J. C. Rainey 

do * 

do 

Dennis McCarthy. 

do 

do 

do 

J. C. Rainey 

Dennis McCarthy. 

J. C. Rainey 

Dennis McCarthy. 

do 



Superintendence and 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 



Repairs 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 



$400 00 
500 00 
423 30 
900 00 
182 28 
800 00 
884 21 
500 00 
764 68 

1,500 00 
900 00 

2,743 85 

1,399 58 



Amount. __ _ $11,897 90 



Amount carried forward $19,277 83 



62 



HOCKING CANAL— Continued. 



IE 



For the year ending Nov. 15th, 1853. 



Nov. 25, J. C. Rainey 

" " iDennis McCarthy, 

" " |Rowe & Ha^an 

1853. 

Jan'y 10, 

Feb. 15, 



J. C. Rainey 

do 

Dennis McCarthy. 
May 16, J. C. Rainey 

" " iDennis McCarthy. 

July 28, J. C. Rainey 

Aug. 23JDennis McCarthy. 

" " I J". C. Rainey 



Superintendence and Repairs 

do do 
Furnishing Gravel Boat 

Superintendence and Repairs 

do do 

do do 

do do 

do do 

do do 

do do 

do do 



8456 97 
830 48 
120 00 

500 00 
1,100 00 
1,4C0 00 

906 88 
67 76 

500 00 
1,645 00 
1,090 30 



Amount 

For the year ending Nov. 15th, 1854. 

Superintendence and Repairs 

Total amount 

Average yearly expenditure for 6 years 



1,617 39 



9,468 03 



358,284 33 



,714 05 



For Superintendence and Repairs, paid the 20th Nov., 1854, which 
belongs to the year 1854, for work done during that year not added 
into the above, amounting to , $718 43 



63 



SECTION NO. 5.— MUSKINGUM IMPROVEMENT. 
Expenditures from November 15th, 1848, to November 15th, 1854. 



1848. 
Dec. 19 

" 22 

1849. 
Feb'y 21 

" 24 



Apri 



June 



July 



Septem. 6 
6 
6 
6 

12 
26 
26 



Oct. 



Nov. 



1849. 
Dec- 

1850. 
March 14 
1 
3 
8 
1 
8 

T < 23 
August 5 



April 
June 

July 



For the Year ending November \5th, 1849. 



0. H. P. Scott 

E.S.&.W Mcintosh 
0. H. P.Scott 

do 

Wm. Fouts 

H. Lathrop 

M. Dulty 

H. Lathrop 

Wm. Fouts 

H. Lathrop 

O.H. P. Scott 

H. Lathrop 

0. H. P. Scott 

H. Lathrop 

O.H. P. Scott 

EL Lathrop 

do 

do 

O.H. P. Scott 

do 

H. Lathrop.., 

do 

do 

O.H. P. Scott 

H. Lathrop 

do 

do 

do 



Superintendence 

Emb'km'nt atBeverly.Rep'rs, 
Superintendence 

do . 

do 

do 

do Award of B'dCl'ms. 
do 



do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 



Amount 



3,000 


00 


444 


39 


3,150 


00 


71 


08 


3,000 00 


1,000 00 


150 


00 


3,000 00. 


1,536 


58 


2,000 


00 


1,000 00 


3,000 


00 


1,000 


00 


2,000 


00 


1,000 


00 


5,000 


00 


5,000 


00 


1,500 


00 


1,000 


00 


1,000 


00 


2,000 


00 


2,000 


00 


2,000 00 


1,842 


74 


2,000 00 


2,000 


00 


3,000 


00 


122 


91 






853,817 70 



For the Tear Ending Nov. 15, 1850 
H. Lathrop Superintendence and Repairs. 



do 

do 
E.B. Leget__. 
Jno. Cooper. _. 
E. B. Leget__. 
Jno. Cooper. _. 
Chas. J. Love . 

do 



do 


do 


do 


do 


do 


do 


do 


do 


do 


do 


do 


do 


do 


do 


do 


do 



3,000 00 

1,000 00 
02: 13 
1,263 85 
1,494 86 
1,500 00 
591 SO 
2,000 00 



Amount carried forward 168,889 83 



14,472 M 



64 



SECTION NO. 5— Continued. 



9 E. B. Leget. 



1850. 
August 

Sept. 1 4:Chas. J. Love 
October 7 

" 16 



Sept. 
Nov. 



1851 

Feb'y 



Roberts & Adams. 

E.T. Cox_ 

Ball & Richards . 

E. B.Leget 

do^ — . 
Chas. J. Love 



Amount brought forward §68,289 

Superintendence and repairs. 2,000 00 
do do 4,000 00! 

Adv'tising notice to contractus 3 00 

do do 2 50 

do do 14 50 

Superintendence and repairs. 4,000 00 

do do 4,455 47 

do do 4,895 28 



Amount 



April 
May- 
July 
Sept. 
Nov. 



15E.B, Leget... 
19 do 
15 Chas. J.Love . 
19 do 
21 do 

15E.B. Leget... 
do 



do 
do 



ending Nov. 15, 


1851. 




Superintendence 


and repairs. 


1,422 15 


do 


do.... 


500 00 


do 


do.... 


1,083 96 


do 


do.... 


1,000 00 


do 


do .... 


767 15 


do 


do.... 


1,330 85 


do 


do.... 


1,500 00 


do 


do.... 


2,500 00 


do 
Amount _. 


do.... 


2,490 74 





1851. J 
Nov. 29 

1852. 
Feb'y 16 

1 
May 15 
July 20 
Aug. 

30 
October 4 
Nov. 15 



For the Year ending Nov. 15, 1852. 



E. B. Leget 

do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 



Superintendence and repairs. 



do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 



do.... 
do.... 
do.... 
do.... 
do—. 
do.... 
do.... 
do.... 



1,000 00 

1,000 00 
1,000 00 
4,000 00 
4,000 00 
3,000 00 
2,000 00 
5,000 00 
2,018 16 



Amount 23,018 00 



19,377 50 



12,594 85 



1852. 
Nov. 26 

1853. 
Feb'y 15 

" 22 
May 16 
June 14 

Aug, 22 

Oct. 



For the Year ending Nov. 15, 1853. 
E. B. Leget Superintendence and repairs. 



do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 
do 



do 


do.. 


do 


do.. 


do 


do- 


do 


do.. 


do 


do- 


do 


do - 


do 


do- 


do 


do- 



2,500 00 




912 87 




2,000 00 




2,025 91 




. 2,000 00 




1,000 00 




3,978 47 




3,000 00 




600 00 


18,017 25 




141,290 85 



65 



SECTION NO. 5— Continued. 



1853, 
Nov. 21 
Dec. 

1354. 
Feb. 16 
March 31 
May lfi 



1854. 
Nov. 16 
17 & 18 



1849. 



July 



Amount brought forward _ 

For the Tear ending Nov. 15, 1854. 



E. B. Leget. 
do * . 
do 



Superintendence and repairs 

do do 

do do 



do do do 

do do do 

Patrick Brennan _. do do 

On contracts,and for superintendence and repairs. 

For repairing casualties 

For rebuilding lock-gates 

For repairing lift-lock at Harmar 



3,786 65 

127 73 

1,500 00 

1,060 OS 
727 86 
956 98 

3,591 3 
646 13 
222 36 
112 01 



Total amount . 



Average yearly expenditures for six years. 
Superintendence and Repairs. 



There is for superintendence and repairs, that 
properly belong to the year ending Nov. 15, 
1854, which is not included in the above ac 
count 



On Contracts. 

Not included in the above account, John McCune, 
building guard-lock 



1,910 51 



2,293 80 



141,290 84 



12,731 08 



154,021 92 



$25,670 32 



$4,204 31 



6 — REP. JOUST COM. OH PUB. WORKS. 



66 



iQOOO 



o o o o o o o 
o o o o o o o 



i>ooo ooooooo 

COOCO 0«5^0000 

o^e^coco *o co *o ^o ©* go t^ 



o^o-^oocooo 



» V 
o ^j 

""■AS 

ED O O 

<* Z " 

"* o 5 d 

id. c3-^ 
« Hi a 

« g ^ a 

« "** « a © bors 

* O i« °Q IK •"" 



,» ,a <*- _p sr a 



«s ^ «_ © .S 2 

«2 °2 o efl s • 
b 2 <x> £ o -^ >• 51 

I ©^ tf«3 

•3 £ -a ° 9 «H 

^j? s gr- 

1 O P* 



gV £ | a g 

3 * I ST. * <" 

£ Pq !> OQ 



o t2 If 



S K 



"•> <+-« -S a 
tgj O eg *S 

" pq &, g 

£?©** o 



513 






cs © . S-S 



^ 



02 © O 

"EH 

°^ o © © °3 






_ 2 w 
- ©^ 



43 



1 



o ** 

H « w 
^ © P 

r-j tp fl z 5 

«T S © Eh -*2 .S -& 

2^8 §1> © 



-5 a 



8 



09 ' 



-=-S I" 



»vJ"T3 i-a 



►■• 



■8 



O.W_9 Orrtrrtrt 1 ^ P 






Pet P^ 



*^ <*> c; a 

-aj a§|8| 

O <jj r-i qj ^ qj 



cocoo, ^5 00 ^J«"l> 



2fr. • . - aJb* 









67 



CO 



T^oOOOrfOO 
1>00©0CT>00 



OOiOOOOOOOO^OOOO 
OOOOOOOOOOOG^OOCO 



TO 

^ I 

^^ : 
3 P 



O O CO o o o> o 
O t^ CO O O Tf O 



i>o"oo©coo© omcooo'-iio 

i-HGOOJiQCNCO^r-i "DCOCOCX GO ©•< 



p. a 

* CO 
©.2*2 



t^cS 



1 p.2 



, ^•flpS 



•5 03 O 

< a~ 
Ilk 

CO T3 

<x> o 



a.o J 

fc ° © 

2 o S 

'P * -S 
GQh^GQ 



% 1 

.9 Ph 

HH 



co rS 



bJO 
P. o 



co <s o jr»^3 
S^M §,§ o 

<P bJO^ O o , m 
^ ci •*» ^ o ©op 

§ org g^sis 

p ^3,2 



a4j<s 



*p£ 



>-> CO 






co o ; *c * 



C3 

<p I 

© CO 






3 c8 



_ CO 

p bo 



tp-g 



ba 



© 



3rP.£ 









Ph GO T3 

'r-'isTJ-— < co t O co oflo co^ 
ter3 b^'P ^ P^S -S Pw 

« M O O S rg^t P^2 _? 



p. 
to: 



•5 co^ o^P 

^-a ^ ,3 P __. 
fl,o Eh «fl " 
'S bos "S - i 



. a- 



ttf 



<J2U1 



2 w 

a CO y 

rd "Ml-3 O 



oQ c3 P b rt 
02 OQ GQ 03 C/2 



d-Q Eh L - - 
U ^ co P- 

C5 -«-» °o -^ o CO 
co k* 2 - S "1 'fch 

&^§^ § = .s 

'S^-m a -*i co P 

"°W CO * oT<1 £ 



;^^ <^; 



«r s 



" Szi' 




68 



^ 

«* 



"tfC0-<fiOr-«e0G0COG4CO 

i>t^:cr^^^©co©*co 
i>*Otf>"*LQCOOi > "«^GO > Oi 
^ Gi ©i ©f »-? »-*" GO ©f ^ 



^ CO *Q CO 



O 
I 

6 
o 

»— < 
H 

o 



.2 -aj " 

C03- 
•fl s 



w«9 

d ~ 

H 






^© 

,d d 



d.d ©.2 

O <rf O O 

. AdH 

J 52 «l2 d 
3 « S>s ° 

.. S « © >. 

•"& °<i'o 






o* 2 J3 
"* « tf "2 o 



-d d o 



pd f- 
£ o 



© ! X3 

a - 



£-~*o- 

""In s § 

2 o o o 

-S«ag 






9 2 2 ©-£ . 



d £ 
© ^ o 
d o ? 

*0 CO cS 

0^0 

P-. rj © 

o d d o 

i-^ O © « 

&D • •- O 
« S 

sd S ^ — 

S d *> = 



^ o~ 3^ 

n - © 

d , d co 
i -° S ~*'<3 

ro CO c3 ^ 

d.S © £ 

P_ d _rH 

« £ So ■ 

§o,2<8o 



,0 



■So I >o 

I? '". 

<—* © I J> 



.So 

2cS *• 

©J -** "o 

CO "^ M 

S o o 

■-d <*- — . 

S5 o- 



Q » co 

^•8 2 



•So LCD -O SP 5 



d Ph o> 



d S — 1 
^^ 

^d P d 
t ph| 



05 2 



■* ffiiS-a -s 

ca g: ^> » . 
J-g a a.s-g & 

•^00 o d 






- fti5 * - 
.OS 



ill us 

^ o. d -e © s 



1-& 

r3 ° 

O 
EH 



^^^^CL, o a 
.•S o .d g^^^ 



O Bit 2 1^ 



^^fS^s^ . rh- a jh ■ 



• ^ 









^0 



a 

rrt" * 






CO o ©< CO 

. ~ ©< <N 1-1 

o 
to 

*- ST fl fc P., 



s^^ 



CO &0 

"4 






3' 



bo >. 

s - .. o 



69 



CO 



tXiOSJCOGOCO^^COG^Oi 

COO^OOiOOJOhCOCOCO 

t^ ^ q -- cr so « o^ 't q ©< t^ 
TfT-r©rGTT-^i-Tco©f»-rco"©iGf 



O O !> O CO 
O O ^ O CO 
CO *Q CO *> 



o o o o 

o o o © 

© © © © 

© © © vo 

l> »0 CO CO 



U3 


Cm 


CO 


o 


•"■* 


03 




c_> 


rX 


£ 


*o 


O 


I— 1 


0) 


> 


•3 


o 


a 


& 






CO 


a 


^3 


o 


O 


tC 


o 

CD 


~ 


U 



8fc 



2 so 









a bo 



■ s *§ 



■5 o 

to o 

r- ^ 

. u 

, o o 

as 

03 S CQ 
»h o ** 

a>.S » 

O 4* 5 

M n, 

03 d 2 
- o> o rq •• - 

3 03 >-. O 



. T5 



*« 



10 


cm 


CO 


O 


»■* 


CD 




o 


to 


cS 
O 


t> 


CD 


o-a 


fe 


a 


a 

o 


CD 




H 




O 




O 




CL» 


o 


p9 










d 


o 


o 




a 


c» 




6 


T3 

P 


£h 


B 






Bfl 


u 


£ 


ea 


a 


CX, o 



d rd . o 



i3 en to 

•a -* 



TO »-< O 



.,a\2' 



eg 



a<2 



r£ 



Mr* 

a a 

d^* 



d co .~ 
0^3 



CD ,J3 £ 



« * s°?~ 



a . 
£2 o 



3 **" 2 d , 

0) CO ^ ' 

sis'! 

3 gco £ 



a c« q 
3W «► 



3-9 



■ R CO 2 

q. a> ™ c« 

fSTgM 

. CD . M O '*"' 



hs S3 W t-s S 



P*^3 



■g ~ 



^ a, 

p>-, ca 
as j 

d " 
Whit 



-^ fe: 



a ~.o 



;0' 



"^ is 



3 


"S 


o> 


t 


>-l 


3 


6 


■ 3 


O 


o © ev ^ 


•9 


^^^o 7 


d 


^c^fl 


o 


. o °» 




H^ ^^5; 


03 


. * . 


M 


owofo 


© 


»Of0 CM r- 


CO 


. ~ <N CN -^ 



Jz;^ 



03 S r ^ S 



- O 



go a 2 



>> ho 

cfl v. - d - 



ki ' 



s v^ d-^ 
4^" 



70 



C ~ 
O CO 
WO*©, 

©ToT 



GO CO O "5 O 

05«5000 
CO t «5<©ih 



co o co 10 i> a> o 

Oi «5 CO Ol CO ■* © 
i> O^ 00 CD CO^ ** GO 
©* «-? ** ©f *-? *-? 



O 

O 

«— i 

O 






" OCQ > 



-eg 
1 ^r 1 



CO 


CO 




rCj 








n 


J 




iO 





*-8 



pi - 

CO _ 



OS 



co P- 



5^ 



CD t>- 



fe 



S3 -£ •- 

^| & 

,0 co „ 

_ co o 

(S OlT o 
CO 02 "^ $3 

*.2«2 42 

«S 03 13 U - 

el*? 



"73 O £3 t<_, 

*^ * o 

. ^ ^ CO 



£ a£ 



S 



a - 

orh 



.£ © fl <g rt 

co •£ "^ "S A 

* § "S § «2 
m o o 

„ ~ (j ^ O Sj o 

«• » r* /-\ <t» n « 



5 el 



o ' 

co $a rj< 



"^ «*H g 

cjoo ^3 

3 ° s 
|J| 



.Sterol's 

nZ fh S Q «7 « 



oo^ 



.3 



3 « T3 § 3,0.2 

K**8£ ^s^ 

s is ® .sp « * ii 
.SUFI'S I 

^ « <S o S' 

- 12 * a. 8 o 4? 2 

>?* ?« rt " * S 

It it ** 11 



laa.: 



2^ 



fl fl«+5 Oi 






:cq 



o a co c <w c 
. 2 c3 o ee o 



bbh 



PL, J., " -"S C5X) 

^nd "" o co 






^ 



. ® « p g.-s 

S © rj< 43 -£ « ® jg 

8 g«o js ^o S o 



- ^ « 



iliiiiil 

« a s "2 aTJa ® ^ 



TJ CT 1 ^ rrt t> fe OQ - 

a 2 a « © \, « ■ 
S a^ S3 * 2 9. > 

a^ a 3i n 

" O w «J _ f^-| < 



^J§g 2 §4i^ 

> os ^^*«a a. 2 

■5|gB|«8¥ 
2«®«2a g«M 

■U CD O "J Sfl® « 

g 00-° ©2-S-d S 

o * « «a o a © § 

M 2 ^2^ a-S 2 
- —53 p « 4> oJ 



REPORT ON SECTION NO. 6, 



MINORITY OF BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS. 

Offices of the Board of Public Works, > 
Columbus, March 31st, 1856. $ 
Hon. Thomas H. Ford, President of the Senate : 

In answer to the following Resolution : — 

" Resolved, That the Board of Public Works be required to furnish to the 
Senate, forthwith, a full and detailed statemeut of the items of the price or cost of 
keeping the Public Works of the State in repair for the six years next preceding 
the 15th day of November, A. D. 1854, excluding all items of expenditures not 
appertaining to repairs, and such as the present contractors are not bound by their 
contracts to perform ; and that they give separately the price or cost of each Sec- 
tion as divided and numbered for the recent letting, and that the statements of each 
Section be furnished separately, as fast as the same shall be respectively com- 
pleted. " 

The undersigned deems it his duty to make a report, which is herewith ie- 
spectfully submitted : 

This report exhibits the cost to the State for the repairs of Section Number Six, 
of the Public Works, for the six years preceding the letting of the contracts for 
repairs, and embraces only the costs of such structures as are required to keep up 
navigation. It does not include the cost of weigh-lock at Toledo, a scructurs 
•which has been built within the period named in the resolution, at an expense of 
about thirty-two thousand dollars, and which the contractors are bound to main- 
tain in thorough repair The contractors have already incurred an expense of 
several hundred dollars in repairing the weigh-lock. The undersigned has also 
included the amounts paid for special superintendence, engineers' salaries, contin- 
gent expenses, of all kinds, salaries of appraisers, awards of damages, cost of 
Canal, &c, and made up from the records in this office, the statement of expendi- 
tures contained in the annexed report. 

The undersigned cannot understand by what rule the cost of structures which 
the contractors are required to keep in repair and rebuild, if necessary, is deducted 
from the expense of keeping up the repairs of said section of the Canal. 

It will not be admitted for a moment, that if any of these structures fall down, 
that the Contractors can escape from rebuilding them. The undersigned under- 
stands that the average cost of keeping up the repairs of the Public Works, can 
only be ascertained by taking the expense to the State for the whole period of six 
years, and cannot discover how it can be arrived at, if a large proportion of the 
expense incurred by the State, in repairs asd re-construction, long since the Caaal 
was completed, is to be deducted and charged to u original construction." Again, 
if a large amount of costs for rebuilding structures are excluded, will not the Con- 
tractors raise the plea that they are not compelled to keep them in repair ? Nt> 
expenditures are included in this report upon any part of the Canal, or upon any 
structure, but what the the Contractors are bound to keep up. 

All of which is respectfully submitted. 

WAYNE GRISWOLD, 

Member of Board of Public Wbtkf, 



T2 



REPORT, showing the detailed average cost of the repairs of Section Number 
Six, of the Public Works of the State, for six years from the 15th day of No- 
vember, 1849, to November 15th, 1854, copied from Journal No. 2, of the 
Records of the Board of Publio Works. 



1849. 
May 15 



1849. 
Nov. 15 



1850. 
May 15 



W. Flinn 

N". Webber ~ 

Steedman & Abell 

Do. do 

Roach & Walker 

Steedman & Abell 

Jas. M. Brigham _. 

H. Tuttle 

R. Strout ' 

W. Flinn... ' 

Plough & Cheeney 

Dodd & Steedman 

Ed. Conolly 



Roach & Walker 

Plough & Cheeney 

Steedmnn & Abell 

J. Langdon - 

Ed. Conally 

J. Woodbery 

Steedman & Abell 

Do. do 

Jas. M. Brigham 

H. Tuttle 

R. Strout 

Dodd & Steedman 

A. Van Vorhes 

Harley & Sherman 

J. Shank 



cut. 



On Gilead side 
Building boats. 

Guard lock, Independence 

Two checks, Defiance Bridge.. 
Rebuilding culvert, 3, m.W.of D. 

Defiance Bridge . 

Account for labor, &c 

Do. do 

Do. do 

Gilead Side cut 

Collector's office 

Waste gate, Waterville 

Two checks, tow path, Toledo . 



H. Shank 

Steedman & Abell 

Sherman & Harley .. 

S. S. Sprague 

Steedman & Abell. _ 

J. M Brigham . 

H. Tuttle . 

R. Strout 

T. W. Bradbury.. _. 



Culvert, 3 m W. of Defiance . . 

Collector's office, Toledo 

Bridge at Defiance, 5 checks _. 
Spikes 

Tow path at Toledo 

Stone at guard gate, Provi'dce 
Fur. stone tow path, 2 checks.. 
Indepen. guard lock, 5 do.. 
Labor, materials, &c. 2 do__ 

Do do 2 do.. 

Do do 2 do — 

Waste gate, Waterville 

Lock house 

Tow path bridge, Def. 4 checks 
Furnishing Iron, do. 

For the year 1849 . 



Fur. iron, Defiance, 2 checks. 



Guard lock, Indepen. 
Defiance Bridge, 
Waste weir, Defiance 
Cut. & deliv. stone, 
Labor, <fec. 

Do. 

Do. 
Bridge at Toledo 



do., 
do., 
do.. 
do.. 
do., 
do., 
do.. 



$967 85 

600 00 

200 00 

650 00 

2,500 00 

3,350 00 

1,712 14 

1,658 72 

2,304 61 

540 00 

1,500 00 

200 00 

1,000 00 



S17,183 32 



61,800 00 

514 29 

2,100 00 

24 12 

100 00 

148 33 

1,100 00 

2,200 00 

2,897 48 

5,953 89 

3,234 24 

109 50 

100 00 

1,755 00 

480 10 



$22,516 95 



$39,700 27 



1,274 71 

700 00 

880 75 

974 8s 

1.280 94 

2,431 43 

4,021 60 

3,079 78 

500 00 



73 

REPORT— Continued. 



18£0. 
May 16, 


Ed. Canally 


New channel at Toledo 

Defiance Bridge 


200 00 


Steedman & Abell 

J. W. Kelsey 

Steedman & Abell. 

Ed. Conally... 


319 49 


— 


Shingles for Defiance 

Independence guard 
Channel at Toledo. _ 


Bridge _. 
ock 


250 00 




815,913 78 


Nov. 16, 


304 66 
193 00 




EL McCullough 

D. Harley 


Lock house ._ - 


175 00 






1,637 22 




H. Tuttle 


Labor and materials, 

Do. do 

Do. do 
Lock house at. Indepe 
Locks 1, 2, and 7, De 
Do. 3 and 4, 
Labor and materials. 
Locks 5 and 6 


3 checks 

2 do_. 

2 do.. 

ndence 

lance 

2 checks 


7,577 28 




R. Strout 


3,087 20 


« 


J. M. Brigham 

H. Banks 


2,166 38 
263 04 


-- 


Karsnor & Parry 

A. Stout _ 


2,800 00 
1,400 00 




E. Lamhart 


3,053 53 




Maxwtll & Harley 

H. Marcellious 

E. Barnhart . 




1,000 00 




Do. 10 


400 00 




For the year 18 X) 






$24,057 31 




839,971 09 




Labor, materials, &c. 3 checks 

Do do 3 do_. 

Locks 1, 2, & 7, Def. 4 do.. 

Do. 3 and 4, 2 do.. 

Do. 5 and 6, 2 do.. 

Do. 10 2 do.. 
Independence guard lock 

Lock No. 10 




1861. 
My 15. 


1,994 37 


R. Strout._ 


1,841 07 


-- 


Karsnor & Parry 

A. Stout 


2,965 00 
2,200 00 


•- 


Maxwell & Harley 

H. Marcellious 

Steedman & Abell 

H. Marcellious _-_ 

H. A. Shafer 


2,200 00 

1,150 00 

150 00 


1851. 


$12,500 44 


Nov. 15. 


6,872 50 




Labor, materials, &c. 

Do. do 

Do. do 
Delivering stone 


5 checks 
5 do.. 
5 do.. 


68 72 




H. D. Taylor 


4,982 83 




J. G. Isham 


6,509 68 




S. H. Steedman 

J. M. Brigham 

Maxwell & Harley 

Karsnor & Parry 

las Bowman 


747 10 


-- 


Labor, materials, &c 

Locks 5 and 6, Defiance 

Do. 1, 2 and 7 


404 62 
338 46 
450 00 




Building lock house, 

Culvert, 

Locks, 3 and 4, L 


Toledo... 

Do 


345 00 




J. R. Bond .. 


490 00 




A. Strout 


237 00 






For the year 1851 _ _ 






119,445 79 




946 ta 









74 

REPORT— Continued. 



1852. 
Maj" 15 


Manor & Roach ... 

D. Harley.., 

H. D. Taylor _ 


Providence Dam Tumble 

(Lock No. 12 


$200 00 
1,289 14 




Labor on repairs 


2,310 60 




H. A. Shaffer 


Do . .. 

Do. 3 checks 

Lock No, 12 2 do.. 

Do. 


1,114 97 
2,778 01 




J. G. Isham 


- 


H. Marcellious 

J. G. Isham 

E. Phelps 


1,200 00 
2,311 96 




Lock house, Defiance 

Locks 1, 2 & 7 


340 00 




Karsner & Parry 

A. J. & J. A. Bowman . 

H. D. Taylor 


47 60 




State Boat 


600 00 




Labor, materials, &c 

Do 






$12,192 28 


N ov. 15 


5,029 20 
3,985 41 




H. A.Shaffer... 

J. G. Isham 

Manor & Roich 

S. H. Steedman. __ 

Jas. Durbin 


- 


Do..._. 

delivering timber 


3,868 40 
97 99 


-- 


Waste weir, 24 mile level 

Plank for Providence dam 

Lock No. 8 


250 00 
235 83 




C. L. Noble 


500 00 




Karsnor, Parry & Gilson 

W. & J. Snook 

A. C. Winslow 

H. Banks 


Do. 9 


500 00 




Do. 13 


400 08 


~ 


[ron culvert, Indepen. 2 cheeks 
Lock house, at Buqkhns 

For the year 1852 


800 00 
150 00 




J. G. Isham 






$15,816 83 




$28,009 11 




Labor and materials, 5 cheeks 
Do. 6 do.. 
Do, 3 do.. 

Waste weir,nearNapo. 2 do.. 

Cast iron culvert, Independe'ce 

Lock No. 9, 3 checks 
Do. 8 




185^. 
May 15 


9,531 93 


H, A. Shaffer 

H. D. Taylor 


5,523 37 
2,688 85 




3. H. Steedman 

A., C. Winslow 

Karsner, Parry & Gitchel 
O.L.Noble 


1,125 00 

266 78 

1,358 20 

1,393 34 


. 


M. Ireland 


Culvert tumble 


178 55 




3. Schnable 


3ast iron culvert, Independe'ce 

Waste weir, Providence 

jock house, Bucklins 

Lock No. 13 ,_ 


100 00 




F. Manor fc 


350 00 




FT. Banks 


287 76 




W. H. &J.S. Snook... 
Fas. Bowman 


1,105 SB 




Labor, materials, &c 


733 Q8 




3. H. Steedman 1 

3. &Schrable 

r. G. Isham 








$24,642 71 


Nov. 15 


Napoleon waste weir, 2 checks 
Julvert, Indepemdence 3 do.. 
Labor and materials 4 do.. 
Do. do 4 do_.j 
Waste wier, Providence j 


$944 6$ 
1,300 00 
6,384 61 


- - 


I. H. Shaaer-__ 

?. Manor 


4,313 
100 00 



75 

REPORT— Continued. 



1853 
Nov. 15, 


Jas. Bowerman 

DarsyV. & Sullin 

J. G. Isham 


Labor and materials, 4 checks . 
Ditching 


84,274 77 
383 93 




For the year 1853, , .. 






#17,701 35 




$42,344 06 




Labor and materials, 5 checks 
Do. do. 3 do.. 
Do. do. 3 do.. 

Independence Culvert 2 do.. 

Water weir, at Providence 

Labor, repairs, &c. 




1854. 
May 15, 


5,704 85 


Jas. Bowerman 

H. A. Shaffer 

S. <feSchrable 

F, Manor 


3,277 13 

4,317 86 

2,500 eo 

300 00 








; 


$16,000 91 


Nov. 15, 


5,416 63 






Do. do. 


5,783 46 




For the year 1854, 






$11,200 09 


I 








$27,301 00 



1849, 
1850, 
1851, 

1852, 
1853, 
1854, 



RECAPITULATION. 

Cost of Repairs, 

Do. do 

Do. do 

Do. do _ 

Do. do... _ 

Do. do 

Total, __ _ 

Average yearly cost for six years, 



$39,700 27 
39,971 09 
31,946 23 
28,009 11 
42,344 06 
27,301 00 



$209,271 66 



$34,878 61 



76 



Office of thb Board of Public Works, 
Columbus, Ohio, April 2, 1856. 

Hon. Thos. H. Ford, President of the Senate : 

Sir — In answer to the resolution of the Senate "requiring the Board of Publfe 
Works to furnish to the Senate, forthwith, a full and detailed statement of th* 
lUms of the price or cost of keeping the Public Works of the State in repair for the 
six years next preceding the 15th day of November, A. D., 1854, excluding all 
items of expenditures not appertaining to repairs, and such as the present contract- 
oars are not bound by their contracts to perform ; and that they give, separately, 
the price or cost of each section as divided and numbered for the recent letting, and 
that the statement of each section be furnished separately as fast as the same shall 
he respectively completed," — the Board herewith transmit statements of the items 
of expenditure on Sections No. Two, (2) Seven, (7) and Eight, (8) as required 
by said resolution. 

By order of tke Board. 

WAYNE GRISWOLD, 
A. G. CONOVER, 
Members Board Public Works. 



77 



«J O 

Puco 

© T-« 



.sS 
-S 3 

CO >_, 

o © 

d **» 



4 

o 



*3.H 

P "55 

© ^ 

© 

*© a" 

2.© 



W © 



S 

w 

ft 



6 
o 

e 

o 
w 

3D 



<x> S 



b/u 



M § 
© 

c» p 

t_ a> 
"c3 M 

©-• £ 

<x> Ph 

PS u 

d "^ 

oo ►» 
©^ 

o «. 

d -a 

d 5 

.9 *-> 
'C o 

a> 2 



g 



OJ 



5 5 
9 d 

OS O 



tfi m 

3 g 

Jfc Oh ■ 

O <d 

g rt 'S 

-3 d a 

as co .S 



I 



at co co -* O) co 


o CO 


CX CO i-4 CX CX CO 


o *-« 


O ^ U3 Ol ©* t- 


o o 


i- f- Oi <X l> O 


o ^o 


»0 O i-i l> 00 CO 


o co 






eo co r^ *o t^ <x 


CO <X 


CO O CO 




» 





^ CO rf Oi <<* (X CX 

O -^ — CO b- — CO 

^ TT O CO W Oi ^ 

co" rj-" i-T i£ oi vi aT 

CX rl 



^ .9" fe %> a 
lT^ • g.S © 

© Ph <D g — $> 

t9 A.9 ^ ° -2 



P^ O O O O O 
© T* h3 T3 'O T3 



d o o o o o 



p. 

d 

CO 



© 

*. b£> ex 1 p 
e p ec o 

S»T3 



nb 



5fi" 



k 2 ^ 



^ 



■» o i2 
~ d 

§ • iS 

Cj CO CO * 

£ p ©^ 

*> 2 co" * 

.*- .£ *P 

"S "£ Pbrj 

^"° d-l 
^ r o S 
^ o >- -2 

o S-_ 

At 

© -^ . co 

5 ^ 3 



i 



a 

CO 



e 1.2 

a s S 
?« o 

Oi y to 

•S ^ p 

s o a> 

'■§§-§ 
K d 

ctS 
bo 



i o o o o o o 

2 T3 T3 T3 T3 T3 T3 



Joooo 

Jr O 'O'O ^ 
fe " b/D bX) g 

P — s ► 



^-5 - 

CP Ph a> 

*s d .r 

Ph p. 



<hHh 









I 8 

o Ph 



d-. o o o o o o 

© T3 n3 -T3 T3 T3 X3 



S O O O O O O 
.2 H3 T3 TD TD TD -X3 
P 



— o 



Z 



78 



1 



I 

< 
D 



2 
< 
M 

< 



c 

C 



x 





to 




a 




CO 




i3 








to 

z> 




■S 




i> 




©r 




3£ 




t- 






















■Q 


tz c o 






rsf^r^^r^ — o^cxcr^r^ 




c- O c ~ -^ 


« ^ 




cc 


5 c c 






r^^csiCOci'C — — i>c~~ 




3 c C 'C s 


c w 




t* 


3 Q S 






q — ob * bb m < =c o n -r --^ a 




c e cc 3i 


— tt 




<r. 


5 m m 






M^mr*io6<DiHi>e(M«>e 




ccc~- 


r~. ^: 






2 ID ■ 






r^~«o-^' — t^r>tt , ri>r; , <ro 




« w o c^ en 


~ n 




§& 


















~~ r^ 






««r5Ct*ccc«r^« ® 




— m kI — " 














"^ "* 














<• 




i i i i i • i i i i >< i 




i i i i 










« 




i i i i i i i i i i i i i 




>iii 








CO 




i i i i i i i i i i > i i 




i i i i i 








X 




itiiiiiiiitii 




i i i i i 








a> 








i i i i i 




! 




»-* 




1 ! 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 




■ i i i i 






B 




i : i ! ? ! S S S S ' 1 J 




■ ■iii 

■ i 


1 








X 
















■- 
































'5 
















— 




i i i i i i i i i i i i i 












^ 




I i i i i r i i i i i i i 












•- 




i i i I l i I 1 I • l i • 




• J ! ! ! 








3 




i i i i i i i i i i i i i 




■ * i i i 












i i i i i i i i i i i i i 












tc 








iii,i 












x x 












js 
































*3 




= ~~ ecc ~ ocece ~ 




■ i i i i 

i i — 








i- 








i ■ ■ = , 








L. 




= _T "' 




i ■ tO 






i 2 


| 




: 1 - i _. 

- -~ -* ~ = - , - — "Z ■_= = 




! ; : = 

- 

, X Z \ 




i 


! ! x 


1 




|l'jjiijj i^-t^. 


^ 






-5 - 


1 1 


> 


. 




C 


||| j f 




|1 


■ * s. 


tc 


5 


o 


5 


HJii 


= 'c 


^Z 


>">_£ 


§ 




X 


y. 


-* -! - i 1 


° 5 





= "~ °0 



^ X — = « 






^ ^ > - =? ^ 



- ■ 






*eh*MM 






s* 



5 £ x 



79 



co^©*-^©*^^©^^ 
OJ^ »>* oj^ co oo^ co^ co^ ©^ <N *-» 

aTco«r©»o&ri-^^ 



■«* ©* © © eo 

Oi © © © u5 

»0 ©< OCOfh 



I 

o 

H 



3 



o 
o 



«ooo 
oo © © © 

00 O »0 |> 









^ § 



^^ 



C8 02 

Jo « v? ft±2 

•I 

§3 



3ooooOoo 

T3 T3 T3 n3 ^ *T3 ^3 
efl oa -*J^ _ 

a> <» c — r 

» *8 rfjtv h ^ a 



o> a £ 
"5.S ► 



SS>0D 



oq Eh P§ « O 



"8 




a o 
■ QO 

ft «rt 

S3 *-■ 

o-OOOOOOO^O 



£ 



"S 



flOOOOOOO.So 
0>'"O'"OtJt3T0' , "O"O ^"O 

-2 ft 



£o 



c 



CQ 



CQ 



/ 




80 



OOOtOO^OO"5COO 

ooot>oooo«o^o 
ot>to©*co^oocooo 



I 



h3 

< 
55 
< 
o 

W 

W 
ft 

<i 



o 

O 

O 

PS 
GQ 



c3 



co o d.a.s 



co 






.a a? 






a I - 



GO O CO O CO — O O — O O 00 

^IWHJOoiOiOO^OOe) 
OiOt'-COt^GOOC '"tO D CO 

erf ©T i-T ^ co" co e* aT i> 



CO _ 

C co 



44 CO 



•S ., co t3 OQ •« _;3 ©JO ©< 
« co 5 co „-Q - £ &P 



SflS 



CO .«, 
03 



ft S o°:s l ft ° Q ffl 
•e Z :s 1* -a < * * 

M - st^ 2-2 %S 2,5 S 
o s o cS 



-3 a « «>«:§ sis a -8 13 



s 



^ 



8*" 



23; 
g B co: 



s s s * s a 



' S3 

Si 8! 

2 §,2 

;.2co 

>° - 

2 <« CO -5 

hi 5 

" © c3 co 



co • 



o o 



: co ' 






>* 

5 



.a "2 o o 

U2 T~ r3 ^™< rr ^ 

cS qj d 

&JD"d 



E>0 



a o 



>* 



£> 

8 



a w co 

o bJoi$ 
S3 C • -• 

•*a "O •"! 

S-gft 

o 2 

oo £ 



e8 G S3 * ^ a rj 

co 2 fc.9 g o a 
2 £JD.£ Q 25 feP ^ 
^g j * JS'-S 3 

'3 ft r SPJa ft r 

£ft 2-^7° S 

co kT O a; °« g* F5 

oq<)4qqj 



s. 



•3 
^3 



a 

I 

.3 



-^ 






<5 ^H^^OQ O 



«3 ^^ 



CO y 

^^ co . 
ft' 



<5 



3 " S' c^O' 



I 



81 



©^GOG^UOOCOOOCNOO 
rf00|>G^^v-.C0O'«1 , OO 

*t^COCO^(NCOOOOO 
iO CO~ CO IQ oi GO CO 



O t-hiOo01>0000»0005COOOOO 

o oiOia»cooooo©<ooojoooo 
o oo^coo^ooo^oo^oo^ooo 

O l>C3»OGOOOG^OTrOCOOOCOOO 

CO <N CO>005ihCO^OCO^iQ05CO'0 

«"T r-Tio"'orGiTfco' > »-^'-^l>Gi im CO 

1-1 ©* 



OJOOOOOOO 
co ""O* ""P ""P ""P r O T3 ""P 



o o o o 



cp C«*3 
o, o a> - 

Hi ^Q 



SSwhI 



£ 



P Q 

03 O 






6 « g 






fc^s 



1-0 

•- o -^ 

P-. ^ & 



0> T3 P _ 
■*-- •« a> O 

•g.S .p^ 3 

) O P_T3 4) 
J T3 3 p Ph 



P-t *"• Ph 

CO Q-i r/} 



1 



co o 
•h CD 

Is 



w 



Q CO 












. <D S 'O ^ P 

WJaiS > fl S cr" 



«a-3- 



"S ° B 
o g,2 

g'3.3 

P3 >H rP 

3 » o 

.O.P 

05 

. o 

Pj3 

r/j ^ 



;«« 



rrstf, 



p 

>»2 e« S U O * ^ £ 



•3*2 ^§^<2 ce^.P^^feS 



^2 ►ra 



cd £ 



13^ * 8« p 
1 " g ^ a b | 

*j hn ^ P -e a 1-1 



IS B §^ 



tuo.o - 



„ &o.S § -a 2 ^ c 

^ « 2 2 ° a s^ 5 ^^^—- 

•2 >>T„ ° bDM-o-s p 
•p.h|-9 |5 

* js _- s ij _* «« 



fi ~ «2 



^ P <D Vn 

^ »- . g bjQ 



- 5 



^H • r-i t-^ CN 



D ■■ CO 



tC Q cl n| fe gQ 2 o S <ri uq ^ 

co" 00" rf 10 co -T oT co t^ co 

r-l CH i-l ^ CN <N 



6 — REP. JOINT COM. ON PUB. WORKS. 



a- ^< 



£*¥ P.- 
T2 P - ,77 o 



82 



CO 

o 



"8. 



COrJ<lCCOCOlWC005COU5TriHeO^C08D 
OiGOi-<^CDCDl>GOTrC0050»Oi-i05Tf< 



©<&*©< 

~ o © 

1HC3CO 






$5,345 03 

1,200 00 

15,317 33 

19,103 45 

575 00 


° 

CO 

1 CO 
GO 

CO 




Ba 



4 



v 



CO ^ 



« p <V > 

^ "*f P <V 

S o p »h o 

O 4a.iSH3 

^ .5 -d p p 

p ?-, =s 



^ 



& ^ 

3 ® 

^ ^ 






§ « 15 . 



r$ ft 



f>. uo 1> t> Oi 



^ o o o o o o 

q ""P ""P T5 ""P H3 H3 



<X> O 



js qg so ^p <a re -^ 

®j^ >-EH h3 g S o 

^ ^ ^ w m eh d d J 



p 



sooooooot* 



•sooooooo 53 

P-t oT 



5 O O *h 



CO •_ , — , <£> 



13 

p 



<2 o • o o o 






§ OO OO OO O r£ 
p I — I 

P Ph 

CQ _____ 02 



; w o u u ., 

p 

P 



o 



o o o o <o 



s)h ^h 



N ^ 



_.„-p^£P 

ft™ JJr; 3 



a 



so 



83 



©OOOOOOr-OeOOO 
OOC0OOOOi-iOI>OO 

OOOOO^OOGOOCNOO 
CM CP o^ q CO ■* ^r t^ o< Tf CO CO 
|> J> •«* !> ~ yf GO i-T 

©J 



StTOtOOO'tOO 
OCi£>T-iOOCftOO 

O^OcoOCi>00 

cm >o co ^oo to^ 
«•!" ©T *o ©T cn" co -^ 



o o c co as © 
o — o — — o 
°i °^ °~ °~ "1 °« 
Tt co" "> .-T 10 10 






8 o H 



sa 



ea 



; O.bfl"^ 



-3 o 



3 CO w JO 

ca cu 
bo b£$tt - 

f s^j 
~£1 



£<2, 



„o 



1 c o o P o 

On3 ^ £ £ o 



, > CO o 

J _0 -£ •— < c3 
! <o bO d co 



^3 



co o 



5j5 

w ■ 



bfl => 






u- a . . 

p'S 3 t 5 a 

^ ** w ea 

3 3 a 

3ffl^ 

I -3 ft o s ? 



<o 

^ in a 

2 £* -2 a 

^ 5 o a 



IQ 






fc 



-W CO l^S F? . 



o a 

o S ^ 



CT** 






rM"S 

^ to— bo bo 

g c ^n a c 

2 -^ i§ is 

»** p '5 '3 '3 ' 

ViD D O) 4> 



^< 


- 8J 


g 


CU CO 

-a ^ 


o 


'/3 ^ 


O O 




g5 


2i ^3 * 

OSS 


3 •- 



b « eg 

Cd Qi QQ 









"" <*> -+J co 

-„.§ « § J.- ^ co 

s ° ^ ® a tt t« 

a. !* bo s 

o ^ "3 ^ ~3 "5 -5 j; 



~ S .s -a ^ - 

S v S J5 ^ rr ;_ - 1 
2 ,o ^ T- C ^ ^ ^ 
^2 b . 2 



fc 



84 



uo o o o o o o 

CO O O O O O C5 

*-< a © © o o "— 

cooo^o w 

lO t-i 05 CO ~ CO <X> 



I 



h3 

o 

I— I 

ft 
< 

I— I 

a 
<! 

(—1 

I 



o 
o 

t— I 

o 



^2 
•8 i. 






3 



5P » o s 



t3£ bJD 



11 

l>«. ©* & ! <j a 

■^ to *s * <D 5 ■, ri 



e« — M <Q C _D 



fc» "TJ "r? 



fe-a o «,-»<8 



s .S ■** i 

rn CO C H-« 



o ,3 *£ .2- 



■S'g.S g>.s 



bfl 



a i2 r>CS^3 

.- — • rs _2 "T ^ o 

-O. S> JO cS JO 

CO CO CO >-i qj 



. CO CO 



^^ 






e« O O O O O O 
^ *"d "d ""O T3 'TS "^ 

o 



85 



RECAPITULATION. 



Superintendence and repairs proper, 1849 
Repairs on contract, ( ' 

Am't on con't "not app'ing to rep'rs," &c 
Superintendence and repairs proper, 1850 
Repairs on contract, ' 

Am't on con't, "not app'ng to rep's," &c 
Superintendence and repairs proper, 1851 
Repairs on contract, " 

Am't on con't "not app'ng torep'rs," &c 
Superintendence and repairs proper, 1852 
Repairs on contract, ' 

Am't on con't "not app'ng to repairs," &c 
Superintendence and repairs proper, 1853 
Repairs on contract, * 

Am't on con't "not app'ing to rep'rs," &c 
Superintendence and repairs proper, 1 854 
Repairs on contract, ' 

Am't on con't "not app'ing to rep'rs," &c 

Total for six years 

Average cost per year 





3,000 


00 




1,638 


34 




8,637 


51 




64 


58,871 




41,540 


81 




43,381 


12 



$157,119 42 



145,988 95 
9,791 75 
$155,780^70 



71,670 8 1 i 
6,217 65 



77,635 97 
12,065 78 



56,625 26 
105,132 04 



67,959 74 
80,497 98 



103,150 31 
73,889 98 



77,888 46 



,701 75 



161,757 30 



148,457 72 



177,040 



$810,626 22 
.'$135,104 37 



Note. — That it may be better understood, it is necessary to say, that when items 
occur for the same work under each of the heads, viz : "Repairs on Contract," 
"Amount on Contract" "not Appertaining to Repairs," &c, they are in such cases, 
where the renewal of the structure has been made of stone, the original having 
been of wood — there being only an amount entered under the first head ("Repairs 
on Contract,") sufficient to renew the structure on the original plan, and of the same 
material; — and where the plan has been changed and rendered more expensive by 
the use of such material, the difference between building on the original plan and 
late one, has been entered as "new work," under the latter head, viz : "Amount 
on Contract not appertaining to Repairs." 

It is expected the contractors will keep the entire Canal, Feeder*, Reservoirs and 
fixtures in repair, including all structures and repairs necessary to keep up good 
navigation, as set forth in the contracts. 



86 



SECTION NO. 2— MIDDLE DIVISION OHIO CANAL. 
Expenditures from 15th Nov. 1848, to 15th Nov. 1854. 



To Nov 


James Hay 


. For Superin'nce & Repairs, 4 checks 


, 4,224 7S 


15, 1849 


• Joseph White 


. " do do 6 do 


5,774 29 




Joseph G-. Clems. _ 


. " do do 6 do 


9,818 78 




Matthew Stewart _ . 


. " rebuilding middle lock 






James Hay 


at Dresden, 4 do 

For the year 1849. ... 

For Superin'nce & Repairs, 4 checks 


3,557 05 




23,374 85 


To Nov 


2,998 65 


15, 1850 


James Moore 


" do do 2 do 


1,658 52 




Joseph White 


" do do 5 do 


4.006 39 




Lewis Evans 


" do do 2 do 


1,803 48 




J. G. Clem....... 


" do do 5 do 


3,983 62 




J. C. Springer 


" do do 2 do 


4,782 22 




Hugh Madden 


" rebuiPg Ramp Cr'k culv. 2 do 


1,281 11 




Jacob Wintrobe 


" do waste gate, 2 do 


1,100 00 




Brown & McConnel 
James Moore 


" do upper lock at Dresden 

For the year 1850 


400 00 




22.013 99 




For Superin'nce & Repairs, 5 checks 




To Nov 


3.697 58 


15, 1851. 


Lewis Evans. . 


" do do 6 do 


4,244 78 




J. C. Springer 


" do do 7 do 


5,715 19 




Tacob Wintrobe. _. 


" building waste gate 3 do 


967 58 




Brown & McConnell 


u rebuii'g upper l'k at Dres'n 5 do 


5,290 25 




do do 


" do BolingGr.l'kNo.13, 5 do 


6,870 92 




W. W. Hollester... 
James Moore 


" furnishing stone in quarry 

For the year 1851__ 


94 56 




26,880 86 




For Superin'nce & Repairs, 6 checks 




To Nov. 


3,726 13 


15, 1852. 


Lewis Evans 


" do do 7 do 


7,004 68 




J. C. Springer 


" do do 6 do 


4,898 09 




Brown & McConnell 


" rebuilding locks Nos. 15, 






Tames Moore 


16 and 17 9 do 

For the year 1852 ... 

For Superin'nce & Repairs, 5 checks 


15,668 46 




31,297 36 


To Not! 


9,900 00 


15, 1853.J 


Lewis Evans 


" do do 5 do 


12,087 40 


t 


1". C. Springer 


l « do do 3 do 


4,222 31 




McGime & Moore.. 


" rebuii'g l'k No. 28, S of P S 6 do 


8,420 55 




Blair & Rinked... 


" do culvert near 3 do 


2,750 21 


J 


3rown & McConnell 
r ames Moore '. 


" do l'ks 15, 16 and 17, 2 do 
For the year 1853 


4,728 23 




42,108 70 








To Nov. J 


?or Superin'nce & Repairs 4 ckecks 


2,684 93 


15, 1854., 


oha Mirise 


" do do 


4,117 35 


|Lewis Evans 


" do do 


1,212 33 



87 



SECTION NO. 2— Continued. 



To Nov. 
15, 1854. 


Lewis Evans .. 

do 

do 

J. C. Springer 

W. Spencer 

S. S. Cox 

W.J. C.Spencer.. 
L. Evans 

S. C. Springer 


For Superintendence & Repairs 

" rebuilding W. acqueduct 

" do do 

" superin'nce & repairs 7 checks 
" repair'g break and build'g 

dam on Granville feeder 

•' giving notice to contractors. _ 

" rebuilding lock No. 4 7 checks 

" repairing break and building 

culvert near Roscoe 


500 00 
2,656 48 
1,643 63 
5,864 02 

1,139 45 

18 50 

7,474 54 

4,799 50 




" do do near Hebron 

For the year 1854 _. 


794 98 




32,905 71 










RECAP 

For the year 1849. 

" " 1850. 

1851. 

1852 

" 1853. 

1854. 

Total for si 

Average y 


ITULATION. 


23,374 85 
22,013 99 
26,880 86 














31,297 36 






42,108 70 






32,905 71 




* 
x years 






178,581 47 




early cost for six years 




29,763 57 









55 



AX A Z C [)UWT of expenditures for snpe rintendeiiee n 

W- ;mee Railroad, from \h 149, to the 

of Dew ■ 



31, E. W. Hover's::!. . 

3il! = - - 

J. L:.it :.zi ::iers 



:s:e 




Fet 28, Six" 



Superintendent of Repairs _. 

?.e::d:5 ?.s rer ^:u:irr5 

Contracts for broken stone _ _ 
Con. for cons. E. of Sandusky 

Z : do. d: 

Z : la. d: 

!r::::c ::' Tells. 

I Id.— 

jcrirr.endcTi: .: Eep?drs. 
:_v.rs 5.5 :er vcujkers. ... 



S3: CI 
32 42 

1=1 :: 



-- 


A. LT:;-2v-?.r 


April 1 . 
May 31, 


\ r --.-.:__ ; "- ^v C 


-- 


Z BiiziiT .'_'_'_ 



Dp. d:. d: 

Do. do. do [ 

Z::.Z.- t T:i: h:ase 

l-iier.icr-S, M=.r:d ?.r_d Apri. 



^u:er:::e 



"O'iJlrrS 

:ker_ 5::ir. 






Aur. Sl ; 



__:-- Euil ?s;r_:. ::11 d: -=e i dig. ~ei 

J: dr. Lidrv I;:::;, :::::: ride: s:::t... 

de .". Do. 1: 

1" r Ev.dsie i: 1: 1:: :":: ::r_: I : :' 1 : _ 1 : ■'_-; 

Six ^:- keepers .. reiiei-rlen :: :ells 

z. W. E:~ '.iid Super'r.:er-ler.: ::' repeirs.. . 

I >wsbyent,___. l:i:r act for broken stone 

Blinds _. Re: sirs =.= :er v:u:ders 



8ept li. Efc 



Sf 11 

ill :': 



59 m 



i: ■:: 

i: :-: 



:-: 11 

17 44 

15 =1 

3^ ":: 

: ? : oi 

144 4! 

in :: 

sf i: 

1^3 3 3 



11 =5 



56 41 



;■: "l 



1? 13 



11 9f 






89 



ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURES— Continued. 









R p s 


— — — : — «. 
Other 








PlOp r. 


Items. 


1850. 






Oct 31 


Six gate keepers . - 
E.W. Hoverland -- 


For collection 




99 96 




Superintendent of Repairs 


36 00 




__ 


Hands 


Making repairs, per vouchers 


344 63 







John Ladry 


Contracts for broken stone _ - 


97 19 





Nov. 30, 


Six gate keepers __ 
E. W. Hoverland- . 


Collection of tolls , 




99 96 




Superintendent of Repairs 


36 00 







McBride and others 


Contract for broken stone. . 


252 76 







Hands 


Repairs as per vouchers 


293 73 





Dec. 31, 


Six gate keepers .. 
E. W. Hoverland. . 


Collection of toll 




99 96 




Superintendent of repairs 


36 00 







Hands 


Repairs as per vouchers 


265 56 





__ 


Do 


Contract for broken stone. .. 


62 16 





1851. 










Jan. 31, 


Six gate keepers . 


Collection of tolls 




99 96 





E. W. Hoverland.. 


Superintendent of Repairs _ . 


36 00 







Contracts 


Broken stone, 


130 56 







Thomas Hull 


Addition to toll house, No. 3 





30 00 




Hands 


Repairs as per vouchers 


301 45 





Feb. 28, 


Six gate keepers _. 


Collection ot tolls 




99 96 


.. 


E.W. Hoverland.. 


Superintendent of Repairs. _ 


36 00 







Hands 


Repairs as per vouchers 


196 44 


..--_ 




Contracts 

Six gate keepers _. 


Broken stone 


63 69 




Mar. 31, 


Collection of tolls 


99 96 




E. W. Hoverland. _ 


Superintendent of Repairs 


36 00 






Hands 


Repairs as per vouchers 


201 88 






Mc Bride and others 


Contracts as per vouchers. . 


257 64 





April 30, 


Six gate keepers __ 


Collection of tolls 





99 96 




J. C. Wales 


Superintendent of Repairs. . 


36 00 





__ 


John Ladry 


Contract for broken stone 


55 00 







John 0* Bryan 


Do. do 


72 66 







Jas. Lynch 


Do. do .... 


60 00 







W.Rice 


Addition to toll house 





10 00 




M. H. Pratt 

R. Sawyer 


Do. do. 





15 00 


mm 


Making oath to monthly ab'ts 


4 00 


__ 


W. H. Pratt 


Do. do 




3 50 




Geo. Mormy 


C lUnteifeit Detec or 





5 00 




Hands 


Repairs as per vouchers 


407 50 





May 31, 


Seven gate keepers 


Collection of tolls 





116 62 


__ 


J. C.Wales 


Superintendent of Repairs 


36 00 







H. Herman 


Contract for broken stone 


40 00 







J. F. Merose 


Do. do 


50 00 






T. S. Foster 


Do. do 


40 CO 






E. S. Frost 


Stoves for toll houses, &c 




190 91 




Hands . 


Repairs as per vouchers 


392 40 





June 30, 


Seven gate keepers 


Collection of tolls 




116 62 




J. 0. Wales 


Superintendent of Repairs _. 


: 6 On 




-- 


F. F. Miese 


Contract lor biok n stone 


20 00 






DO 



ACCOUNT 07 KXPENDITUILB&— Continued. 



1851. 
lime 30, J. H. Qadpinch- .. Jonfacaei :'■:: broken stone 

B. Hannan Do. do 

1 _lrS LjLCh Do. 

J as. Bom": - Do. 

■'.'-- Liirj j Do. do. 

H. Chumbher Addition to gate No, 7 

Elands Benain is pei v;u:7e:s 

July r : ^: r f: gate keepers . : lection of tolls 

J.C.Walls Su:rr:z:ii: irs __ 

las. Lynch Qwfraet te faraftaai stone 

Campeld <£: Co 'Hardware 

7. Meaker Addition to gate house, No. £ 

C. A. Larnt ..... Desk for ga:e keere: 

Hands E peryoucheis 

Aug, SI, Seven gate keepers i Co Jection of tolls 

Hinds . roucheiSL 

Sept. 5 : . Seven gate keepers j Collection of tolls 

S;ndrv persons... - :i:.i:: ::r :r:ken s::ne 






VTrighi; h Laundry 

afca. 

' m Sc r.ers 

nan Lynch 

ie 



- i'^ir.* and ~;. ing ~77.__ 
. Suierin:enien: :•: Repairs. . 

. Contract for broke! s::ne 

Do. _: 

Da :;. 

--_:.! is ...... . :.t: r.irs r.s:s: ::z::?.r. 

ieven ga:e krviri: ^oilecnon of tolls 

Wales Sa^eiasteadeaM :: Repairs. . 

Thomas Granell (Contracts for broken stone .. 

i >a:i:e Do. i: 

.. a & H. Pkriis... Do. do 

.. H.Elder : Do. do 

.. W. Philli-e Do. do 

_ 7 ~e"_se- 1 ;.'■::. - l :i z :z: z.:i^-__ 

__ J. P. Bktapn 7 :, _ : .... 

7nis _ _. - ?ei vouchers 

Not. 30, J. 0. Wales jSmpenntendent ::" 7.epairs_ . 

-':i ken stone. . 

Do. :.:.... 

Do. do 

Do. lc 

Do. io 

Da li 

ney*c fees 

.' 7 E.ieriin.... - i*e Tonsan: p?.: 

i B 777-;.. . flntiml :7r bfefcnti Stone... 

Thomas Ganell ' Do. do . 

E. S. Frcs: 7:r l awns, oii, <!:: 

I .._i = 7:rr-:i:s ;.s pes v; ;.;7r:s . 



I 7u:nce 

D. D.Foster 
Jos. Lpnch.. 
H. Herman.. 
J. F. Mvrose. 

H. iei 

H.& C:merger__. 



?r:: 



•2 j i . 

5<j ; ; 

: * I 

16 DC 

4-: : . 

411 77 

2 6 •- . 

16 5. 



I ems. 



25 38 
1 1C : I 











4!' 00 






3S0 5; 








116 62 


671 :: 








lie 69 


1 SC - - 


.... 




8 00 


:i - 





f : - - 





se '-■- 









55i a 


... . 




116 62 


:- 1 : : 










~f 





si 7; 





K - - 





5 :■ c c 





is n 










661 11 





sf :■: 





:: :f 





1 u 





100 00 





11 :7 


... . 


Ifl K 





. : ; m 







:: ::• 


... _ 


3#0 00 


5: :: 





40 00 






13 67 



4ic n 



91 



ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURES— Continued. 



1851. 
Dec. 30, 



1852. 
Jan. 31, 



Feb. 29, 



Mar. 31, 



April 30, 



May 31, 



J, C.Wales 

Samuel Medary__ 
Thomas Ganell.. 

J. P.Elderpin 

J. J. Park 

J.Hull 

Hands 



June 30, 



Myres & Reby.. 

J. C. Wales 

James Lynch 

H. Elder, 

H. Minhole 

John Quin 

S. &H. Phelps.. 
J. P. Elderpin... 

Hands 

M. Hayes 

J P. Elderpin.. _ 

John Quin 

E. S. Frost 

J. C. Wales 

Hands 

John Quin 

J. & P. Smith... 

H. S. Comerger 

J. C.Wales 

John Miller 

Hands 

W. & H. McMano 

H. S. Woods 

I. C. Wales 

Do 

Hands 

T.Cady.. 

r. C. Wales 

(t. Mourney 

S. & H.Phelps... 

James Lynch 

A. C. Wright... 

J Wise 

0. Slutle 

nomas Garrell 

H. Mo.sehall 

Hands 

0. Wales 

John Quid 




Super, of Repairs.per vouchers 

Printing toll books 

Contract for broken stone. 

Do. building bridge. 

Do. do 

Tolls of Maumee Bridge 

Repairs as per vouchers 



Printing 100 abstracts 

Superintendent of Repairs. _ 
Contract for broken stone. _ 

Do. do 

Do. do 

Do. do 

Do. do 

Contract for bridge building- 
Repairs as per vouchers 

Contract for broken stone 

Do. building bridge 

Do. broken stone. . 

Oil paints, &c 

Superintendent of Repairs ._ 

Repairs as per vouchers 

Contract for broken stone 

Do. do 

Attorney's fees in June 

Superintendent of Repairs 

Painting bridge 

Repairs as per vouchers 

Contract for building bridge . 

Digging ditch 

Superintendent of Repairs. _ 

Repairing culvert 

Repairs as per vouchers 

Ninety-seven rods of ditching 
Superintendent of Repairs. _ 
Repairs to gate house No. 5. 

Contract for broken stone 

Do. do 

Printing abstracts for gates. . 

Post office stamps ... 

Contract for broken stone 

Do. do 

Do. do 

Repairs as per vouchers 

Superintendent of Repairs __ 
Contract lor broken stone 



36 00 

20 00 

55 00 

18 00 

434 12 



36 00 
39 53 
39 42 
50 01 
100 65 
30 00 

204 83 

86 40 

25 00 

36 00 
340 52 

87 57 
45 00 

41 66 

4i 9 40 



50 


Ot 


41 


66 


55 


CM 


515 


69 


34 


■JO 


41 


67 


56 


11 


37 


56 


25 


00 


50 


00 


40 


00 


40 


00 


, r >7:> 


93 


•11 




100 


00 



92 



ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURES— Continued. 







\ 


Repairs 


Other 




S. E. Simpkins 


Breaking 82 cords of stone.. 


Proper. 


Items. 


1852. 


144 24 




June- -30 


Thompson ... 


Seven Detectors, for gates _. 




7" 00 


__ 


George S. CoswelL 


Repairing tool house . 


15 0( 


._._. 




Jolin Quin..- 


Contract for broken stone 


7- or 




.. 


Hands _ 


Repairs as per vouchers .... 


355 60 





July 31 


J. C.Wales 


Superintendent of Repairs _. 


48 67 





.. 


C. Stahlin 


Contract for broken stone 


81 82 






H. Menhold 


Do. do 


43 75 


_ 


__ 


J. P. Elderpin 


Do. building bridge . 





30 50 


._ 


Hands 


Repairs as per vouchers 


814 28 




Aug. 31, 


J. C. Wales 


Superintendent of Repairs _. 


41 67 





._ 


S. Bucklin & Co... 


Oil, paints, brushes, &c 





28 50 


__ 


J. F. Smith 


Contract for broken stone 


95 00 







B. Ryan _.___ 


Eighty rods of ditching 

Contract for building bridge- 


20 00 






F.Wilson 




127 00 


__ 


J. C. Wales 


Digging a well for gate 





18 50 


__ 


John Quin- 


Contract for broken stone 


110 00 





-_ 


W. J. Jackson.. __ 


Locating road, making plans 





54 65 


«... 


S. Jefferson _. 


Survey do, for extension 





6 00 


__ 


Thomas Ganell 


Contract for stone 


42 92 







Hands 


Repairs as per vouchers „_, 


225 92 





Sept. 30, 


J. C.Wales. 


Superintendent of Repairs _ _ 


41 67 




_■_. 


A. P.Wright 


Printing abstracts for gate . - 





9 25 


__ 


J. Quin -„„_ 


Contract for stone . 


100 00 






Thomas Ganell 

J. Moore-. 


Do, do 


30 0U 
81 50 






Forty-one per. stone culvert- 


-.11 




E. S. Fro f .. 


Stoves, chairs, spikes, &c. _. 


..-. 


77 45 





Myers & Riley 


Printing abstracts for gates _ 





6 50 




Hands „__. 


Repairs as per vouchers 
BaL of 120 rods of ditching. 


255 13 




Oct. 31, 


J. Hemture... 


49 00 


JlJl 





J. C. Wales...... 


Superintendent of Repairs _. 


41 67 







S. Bucklin & Co... 


Oil, Glass, Paints, &c...-_ . 





17 06 


»« 


R. Ray nor 


Seventy-five rods of ditching 


17 76 







R. Huddleburt.... 


Contracts for broken stone __ 


50 0U 






H. Menhart 


Do. do.. 


28 65 


l+tim 


Dec." 31 


M. A. Maston 


Contract for broken stone 


50 00 







J. Brownsbyer 


do do 


125 00 


„. 




John Quinn 


do do , 


150 00 


,_ 




C.M.Gruly.. 

J. Wrin 


Special Sup't. . 


50 00 






Post office stamps . 

Contract for building bridge. 




3 00 




J. P. Elderpin.... 


480 00 


._ 


A. Abbott ._.._-. 


Barn, &c, at Gate No. 6... 





29 44 




Hands . 


Repairs as per vouchers — . 


454 24 




Nov. 30 


J. C. Wales 


Sup't. of repairs 


41 67 






John Quin __ 


Contract for broken etone 


135 70 




._ 


J. P. Elderpin.... 


do for building bridge - 




300 00 


»_ 


Jos. Lynch 


do for broken stone... 


60 00 






93 



ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURES— Continued. 









Repairs 


Other 








Proper. 


1 terns. 


1852. 






Nov. 30 


B. Ragen 


Allowance on ditch 


20 00 




.. 


Hands 


Repairs as per vouchers 


369 37 





Dec. 31 


J. C.Wales 


Sup't. of repairs 


41 67 







B. Ragen . — 


100 rods ol ditching 


43 75 






S, Bucklin&Co... 


Oil, paints, <fec 




15 00 




J. Miller 


Painting Green creek bridge _ 
Special superintendence 


42 00 


12 00 


__ 


C. S.M. Gusley- .. 




._ 


J. P. Elderpin 


Extra on bridge contract 





25 00 


_. 


E. S.Frost 


Spikes, lead, books, &c. 


41 28 






Hands 


Repairs as per vouchers 


362 28 




1853. 






.... 


Jan. 31 


C. S. M. Gusley.. 


Special superintendence 


30 00 




-. 


J. C.Wales 


Sup't. of repairs 


41 67 




__ 


J. Brownsbeyer 


Building stable at gate No. 1 





41 35 


_. 


B. Huddleburk .._ 


Contract for broken stone 


40 00 






Hands 


Repairs as per vouchers 

Sup't of repairs 


268 12 




Feb. 28 


J. C.Wales 


41 67 




__ 


C. Wood 


Bal. con. for stone, C. Howard 




29 32 


-- 


C.S. M. Gusley — 


Special superintendence 


30 00 




-- 


Hands 


Repairs as per vouchers 


35>J 53 




March 31 


E. S. Frost 


Spikes, wrought nails, &c. . . 





47 44 


-- 


J. G. Wales 


Sup't of repairs, &c, -.. 


43 80 




-- 


S. Jefferson 


Surveying road extension 





2 00 


-- 


C S. M. Gusley... 


Special superintendence 


30 00 




__ 


Hands 


Repairs as per vouchers 


419 56 




April 30 J. 


Sup't of repairs 


50 00 






Campeld & Mitchel 


Hardware bill in full. 




18 50 


-- 


S. Bucklin& Co... 


Oil, stamps, stationery, &c.__ 




24 38 


.. 


C. S. M. Gusley... 


Special superintendence 


30 00 




-- 


Geo. Mourney 


Hands and team filling.., 




62 50 


__ 


M. A. Morton 


Contract for broken stone 


101 30 




-- 


Jos. Lynch 


do do 


64 03 




-_ 


Thos. Garell 


do do 


100 00 




_ 


R. Huddleburk __ 


do do 


75 00 






Hands 


Repairs as per vouchers 


257 39 




May 31J. C. Wales.. 


Sup't of repairs 


50 00 




-. 


II. Chardler 


Bal. on additional gate No. 7 




76 13 


-- 


C 8. M. Gusley _. 


Special Superintendent 


30 00 




-. 


B. Huddleburk ... 


Contract for broken stone.. 


9,"> 4fi 




_. 


Thos. Garell 


do do 


75 00 






.1 Urownsbeyer 


do do 


92 11 




_ 


•J. R. Hunt 


Postage stumps .. 




4 02 


-- 


1) Cooper 


Com. Pleas costs State v. J.&G 




13 41 




1 1 inda . 


Repairs as per vouchers 
Sup't of repairs, &c 


278 S? 




June 3 > J 0. Wales 


54 05 




_- 


1 .omager <k Lemer 


Att'ys fees State /-.J. & G... 




16] 43 


- 


Joa Myers 


15 barrels of water lini 




20 00 


_ 


Hands __ 


Repairs as per vouchers 






July SO 


A. Grey back 


Mat. & rep'rs, Green co. 1m1 ;t 


83 r 





94 



ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURES— Continued. 



1853. 
July 



Aug. 31 



Sept. 31 



Oct. 



Nov. 30 



S 

J. C Wales 

Hands .,.. 

J. C. Wales.. 
John A.Shum 

B. Huddleburk ... 

Hands 

L. Caul 

J. C. Wales...... 

J. A. Stern 

J. Armsted 

D, Comniers 

Thos. Gunnell 

Jos. Bomberger 

C. A. Lamb 

M. A. Morton 

Hands _ 

J. C. Wales 

S. D. Bancroft 

J. A. Stew.. 
M. McBride. 
Jos Lynch.. 

Hands 

J. C. Wales. 

J. Miller 

J, A. Strawn 
J. J, Parks 



Dec. 31 




1854. 
Jan. 31 



Feb .28 



G. Conicher 
S. Buckland & Co. 
J. J. Parks. _. 
D, Cummons 

Hands 

L C. Wales. 
D. Cummons 
D. Williams.. 
A. Strom.. 
J. C. Wales., 
Hands ...._. 



J. C.Wales--.. 
Vic iiride....... 

J. Carroll 

J. Segren ... 

J. G. Jsham _-_ 
iiiley & Welder. 

Hands 

J. C. Wales 

Wm Pheblin... 
W. A. Morton .. 



Mak'g 7 bolts, Green co. b'dge 
Sup'fc repairs, att'ys fees, &c 

Repairs as per vouchers 

Sup't of Repairs _ 

9-J- days special Sup't 

Contract for broken stone 

Repairs as per vouchers. ... 

Post office stamps & act. 

Sup't of repairs 

Special supeiintendent 

68 rods of ditching . 

Use of horse teams 

Contract for broken stone 

do do 

Leveling rod - . ^ 

Clearing ditch on 9th mile.. 

Repairs as per vouchers 

Sup't of repairs 

Telegraphing, from May 1 5th 

Special superintendent 

Advance of Sugar cr'k br'dge 

Contract for broken stone 

Repairs as per vouchers 

Sup't of repairs .... 

135 rods of ditching 

24 days special sup't 

Lot in Perrysb'g of N, V. Ray 

Contract for broken stone 

Blank books, stationery, &c. 

Cost for right of way „, 

Use of team 

Repairs as per vouchers... . 

Sup't of repairs 

Use of team ,_ 

Post office stamps 

Special superintendent 

Stove and pipe for office. _ 
Repairs as per vouchers.. 

Sup't of rep'rs as per voucher 
Ballance Sugar creek bridge 
Post office act. and stamps.. 
13-J cords b'ken stone & labor 

Massillon bill paid hands 

Printing blanks . 

Repairs as per vouchers 

Sup't of repairs, &c. . 

Contract for b'ken stone, '51 
Clearing out ditches 



5 00 

61 00 

295 97 

50 00 

14 25 
100 00 
226 18 

50 93 
34 50 
17 00 

15 75 
74 33 
97 65 



20 


00 


180 


08 


50 


00 


8 


97 


30 


00 


100 


00 


308 


79 


50 


00 


15 00 


36 


00 


181 


96 


21 


64 


13" 


50 


210 


47 


50 00 


5 


00 


36 


00 


12 


80 


442 


80 


51 


50 


65 00 



51 87 



263 74 
52 50 
50 00 
68 50 



Other 
Items. 



9 67 



5 00 

100 00 

50 75 
37~io 

6 00 



25 00 
23 50 



95 





ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURES— Continued. 






Hands 


Repairs as per vouchers 

25 cords stone b'ken & deliv'd 
42 ft. nesv bridge in Fremont 
Sup't of repairs 


Repairs 
Proper. 


Other 
Items. 


1854. 
Feb. 28 


225 32 
75 00 

50 00 

17 50 
43 75 

263 68 
60 00 
60 00 
45 0C 
71 25 

114 75 
60 00 

60 0C 
28 75 
27 50 

2 50 
65 00 
62 50 
42 50 
65 00 

142 42 
62 50 
31 25 
25 00 
65 00 
10 75 
20 00 
27 50 
67 00 
20 00 
65 00 

64 33 

65 Ok 
50 00 
65 00 
35 40 

127 50 

65 00 

3M 10 

°l 60 

61 60 






J. F. Smith 

F. Wilson 

J. C. Wales 

Riley & Wilder... 

J. A. Stone 

Parks & Hayes 

Hands 


147 00 


-- 


Printing blanks -_ 

Superintendence 


23 50 




Ditching" 






Repairs as per vouchers 

24 days with horse team 

do do do 

20 do do do 

Sup't of repairs 




April 30 


S. Marcy 

P. Russell.. 

H. Guskin 

J. C. Wales 

Hands 







Repairs as per vouchers 

24 days horse team 

do do 

23 do labor __ 

22 do do 

2 do do 

Sup't of Repairs 




May 31 


S. Marcey 

P. Russell 

Pat Keffe 

J Rizer 





- 


Wm. Dunlap 

J. C. Wales 

S Marcey 

W. Guskin 

J. C. Wales 

D. Williams 

Adam 





June 30 


26days with team ._ 






17 do do 


- . . . 




Sup't of repairs 




-- 


Postage stamps, &c 

8 copies Thomson's detector. 

Repairs as per vouchers 

25 days with team 

do work of self 

20 do do do 

Sup't of repairs 


6 20 




f lands 


Q 40 


July 3 ! 


S. Marcy 

P. Russell 

Pat Keffe. 

J. C.Wales 

A. M. Farnsworth. 

P.Russell 

E Carroll 

S. Marcy 

S. Whitaker 

J C.Wales 

Hands 




Aug. 3 1 


Teaming timbers, gate, &c. . 
8 days with team 







11 do do 






27 do do .. 






8 do do _. _ 


. . 




Sup't of repairs 






Repairs as per vouchers 

26 days labor with team 

20 do do do 

Sup't of repairs 




Sept. 31 


S. Marcey 

do __ 

J. C. Wales 

do 

Hands 





-- 


90 loads gravel Sl b'ken stone 

Repairs as per vouchers 

Printing abstracts 





Oct. 31 


J. Riley 


5 00 
t> 32 




D Williams 

,). 0. Wales. 

J.P Elderhan 

1 lands 


Postage stamps .... 




Sup't Of repairs. 




-- 


Repairs on Woodville bridge. 
Repairs 





Nov. 30 


Canfield & Bro 

Jos. F.Smith 

D . Capper 


Wrought spikes _. 


. . 




•hi. 1 , <-oids broken stone 

Cost in suit Slate V, June &0. 


116 13 





ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURES— Continued. 






J P. El J erhan____ 

J. C. Wales 

-lands , 

I. P. Elderhan 

J. C. Wales 

Hands 


Repairs on Woodville bridge 
Sup't ol repairs 


Repairs 
Proper. 


Other 
Items. 


1854. 
Not. 3 


223 CC 
65 OC 

483 59 

144 79 
65 00 

223 CO 


""" 


Des. 31 


Repairs as per vouchers 

Repairs on Woodville bridge 
Sup't of Repairs 




-- 


Repairs as per vouchers 





for the year 1850, 1851, 1852, 1853, 1854... 


329,807 13 




Add for repairs in 1849, as is shown in Journal of Records 
for said road in the office of the Board of Public Works, 
page 31. the Board not being able to find any detailed 
statment for said year in the office or elsewhere _ 

Add to cover expenses of rebuilding three bridges on the 
original plan, they having been superceded by struc- 
tures • n the form or lattice plan at an extra cost, said cost 
not being included in the above statement of repairs 


2,295 3-1 
1,200 OC 





Total for six ^ 


•ears 


34,302 4* 


7,249 71 


v cost for six years 






Average year 


85,715 07 





97 



OFFICE OF BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS, > 
Columbus, 0., April 3d, 1856. \ 

Hoar. Thomas H. Ford, President of the Senate : 

Sir : — In answer to the resolution of the Senate, " requiring the Board of Public 
Works to furnish to the Senate, forthwith, a full and detailed statement of the item* 
of the price or cost of keeping the Public Works of the State in repair for the six 
years next preceding the 15th day of November, A. Di 1854, excluding all item* 
of expenditures not appertaining to repairs, and such as the present contractor* 
are not bound by their contracts to perform ; and that they give, separately, the 
price or cost of each section, as divided and numbered for the recent letting, and 
that the statement of each section be furnished separately as fast as the same shall 
be respectively completed/' — the Board herewith transmit statements of the item* 
of expenditure on sections No. One ( 1 ) and Three (3), as required by said reso- 
ution. 

By order of the Board, 

WAYNE GRISWOLD, 
A. G. CONOVER, 
Members of the Board of Publio WoAs, 



7 — bkp. joint COM. OB PUB. works. 



93 

SECTION NO. 1.— NORTHERN DIVISON, OHIO CANAL. 

Statement showing the amount for (i Superintendence and Repairs," excluding all 
items of expenditure " not appertaining to repairs," and such as the present con- 
tractors are not bound by their present contracts to perform. 

For Sic (6) Tears, from 1349 ^ 1S54 In^sive. 



Nov. 



Xov. 







1849. 




If 


Snp'ee k rep'rs 


as per acc'ts of P. Wetfc i 


Sf 574 s: 




do 


do Jesse Hill "._. 


5.153 91 




do 


do JohnHiidt.jr 


3,034 65 




do 


do John Patton 


3,752 :: 




do 


do John Black . 


3 f. 




do 


do John Howe 


4,559 09 




do 


do Edward W 


3,314 51 




do 


do Enofl Hawkins... 


5.734 43 




do 


do John Birnler . 

Iff,. 








If 


Snp'ee £ rep'rs a 


5 per ac'cs of Paul Wetl 


2,09: IS 




do 


do j c =se h::i ._ 


>! 11 




do 


do John Hildr, jr. 


1 899 es 




do 


do John Patron 


z.5-5 :f 




do 


do John Black 


2,612 57 






do John Howe 


2,537 17 




do 


do Edward Waite_. 


501 64 




do 


do Ens Hawkins... 


4,195 31 




do 


do Boras F.Waite.. 


624 81 




do 


do Henry W. Mjere. 


1,223 03 




do 


do Wm. Pomerov. . . 


1,807 87 




da 


do Thos. H. Malme.. 


1,005 OS 




do 


do Horace E. Bpencei 


1,280 87 




do 


do Vance P, Banhain 


1,3-27 57 




do 


do Jos. Malone 


857 59 




do 


do John Langhead.. 


952 61 




do 


do Henry Morgan 


1,764 69 




do 


do John Brimler 






do do Ira Hawkins 

Repair* en Contract. 


1,276 28 








Stover & Miller, 


constricting 3 State board- 






ing boats 




1,500 00 




[awsoo Waterman, constructing 2 State board- 




in°r boats 




500 00 






1851. 








Sip'ce & rep's ai 


i per ac. Henry Myers 






do 


do Wm. Pomeroy 


5.464 05 




do 


do Thos. H.Malone.... 


2,68a 74 




do 


do H. E. Spencer 


2,425 54 




do 


do Vance P. Bonham__. 


2,454 41 



33,217 83 



30,628 97 



«,900 00 



99 



SECTION NO. 1— Continued. 



Nov. 15 



Nov. 15 



1851. 

Sup'ce & rep's per ac. of Joseph Malone 

do do John Langhead 

do do Henry Morgan 

do do John Bimler 



Nov. 
Nov. 



1852. 

Sup'ce <fc rep'rsper ac. of John W.Edgar 

John Bimler 

Thos. H. Malone - 

Wm. Pomeroy 

John Langhead 

Vance P. Bonham. 
Horace E. Spencer- 
Henry Morgan 



do 


do 


do 


do 


do 


do 


do 


do 


do 


do 


do 


do 


do 


do 



Repairs on Contract. 
15 Lawson & Waterman, building scow boats 

1853. 

l5Supt'ce & rep's as per ac. Jno. W. Edgar 

John Bimler 

Thos. H. Malone ... 

John Langhead 

Vance P. Bonham _ 
Horace E. Spencer.. 

Henry Morgan 

James Billington ... 



Nov. 
Nov. 



15 



16 



do 


do 


do 


do 


do 


do 


do 


do 


do 


do 


do 


do 


do 


do 



Repair* on Contract. 
L. Waterman, building state boarding boats _. 



1854. 

Supt'ce & rep's per ac. Jno. W. Edgar. 
do do Jno. Langhead.. 

do do 

do do 

do do 

do do 

do do 



Vance P. Bonham 

Horace E. Spencer 

Henry E. Smith 

Jas. Bilington 

Charlses Rinehart 

Superintendence and repairs last half year__. 

Repairs on Contract. 
N. C. Winslow, water-lime 

C. Keeves,construct'g culverts & cmb'kments. 



51,488 49 

3,125 88 

6,190 01 

100 00 



5,728 15 
100 00 
6,297 45 
3,269 3: 
4,772 78 
3,599 23 
2,828 01 
708 51 



350 00 



8,262 37 
100 00 
563 53 
4.800 99 
3,640 84 
4,060 17 
2,736 17 
6,616 45 



550 00 



3,377 78 
4,848 27 
1,446 24 
1,028 62 
1,142 35 
2,75'J -11 
391 90 
11,839 90 



68 7 
240 00 



25,134 99 



27,303 49 



350 00 



29,780 5* 



550 00 



26,827 50 



S08 7fl 



100 

SECTION NO. 1— Continued. 



Walhonding Canal. 








Supt'ce&rep's as per ac. L. Hogle, 1849 




2,223 52 




do do do 1850,8978 17? 


1,766 61 




do do C. J. Love, " 


788 44 ( 




do do J.G.Perry, 1851, 3,482 46 \ 


4,051 62 




do do C. J. Love, " 


569 16$ 




do do J. G. Perry, 1852. 
do do do 1853. 




2,914 36 






2,064 72 




do do do 1854. 




1,796 85 


14,817 68 








Recapitulation. 




§190,919 73 


Amount, Ohio Canal, (r*or. Div.,) for year is^y 


33,217 83 




Walhonding Canal, " 


<( 


2,223 52 




Ohio Canal, (Nor. Div.,) " 


1850 


32,628 97 




Walhonding, " 


a 


1,766 61 




Ohio, 


1851 


25,134 99 




Walhonding, " 


" 


4,051 62 




Ohio, 


1852 .. 


27,653 49 




Walhondiag, " 


tt 


2,914 36 




Ohio, 


1853. 


30,330 52 




Walhonding, M 


" 


2,064 72 




Ohio, " " 


1854 


27,136 25 




Walhonding, " 


*t 


1,796 85 


190,919 73 


Average per year, for six years 




$31,819 62 



101 



SECTION No. 3.— SOUTHERN DIVISION OHIO CANAL. 

Expenditures of so much of the Southern Division of the Ohio Canal, as is em- 
braced in Sec. No. 3 of Proposals, from the 15th November, 1848, to Novem- 
ber 15th, 1854. 



1849. 








Nov. 15, 


Isaac G. Carr 


Superintendence and Repairs . 


86,381 86 





John W. Milligan 


do. do 


7,392 93 


__ 


James Rankin 


do. do. 


6,055 42 


._ 


Charles W. Speaks 


do. do 


4,6<?0 00 


„_ 


Robert Lowrey 


do. do. 


7,008 89 




H. Lathrop 


Rebuilding lock gate 


500 00 




S. W. Brown _ 


Circleville aqueduct 


500 00 




Brown & Nugen 


Locks 20 and 21, south 


1,000 00 




S. W. Brown 


Superintendent 


1,000 00 




Brown & Nugen 


Locks 20 and 21, south. 


500 00 




H. Lathrop 


Rebuilding lock gates, &c 

Circleville aqueduct 


250 00 




Brown & Nugen 


900 00 




Do. Z 


Locks 20 and 22, south 

Circleville aqueduct 

Do. do... 


1,800 00 




S. W. Brown 


200 00 




Do 


1,500 00 




Do. 


Do. do.... 


500 00 




Stephen Harlaugh 

Brown & Nugen 


Building pile 


1,100 00 




Abutment, Circleville aqueduct 


200 00 




Stephen Harbaugh 


Building pile driver, &c 


300 00 




S. W. Brown 


Circleville aqueduct 

Building pile driver, &c 


500 00 




Stephen Harbaugh 


300 00 




H. Lathrop 


Do. locks, &c. 


300 00 




Stephen Harbaugh 


Do. trestle foundation 


200 00 


_. 


8. W. Brown 


Circleville aqueduct 


2,300 00 




Brown & McConnell. __ 


Building locks, 29 and 30 


1,000 00 




H. Lathrop 


Do. gates and boats 


150 00 




Brown <fe Nugen 


Circleville aqueduct 


12 14 




S. W. Brown 


Do. do 


50 00 




Do. 


Do. do. 


300 00 




Hully & Hayes. .. 


Furnishing water-lime 


483 28 




Do. 


Do. do 


263 32 




Brown <fc McConnell 

Stephen Harbaugh 


Locks 29 and 30 


1,500 00 


-- 


Building pile driver, &c 

For the year 1849, 


123 56 




49,171 40 


1850. 




Nov. 15, 


Isaac Carr._- 


Superintendence and Repairs.. 


84,295 66 




John W. Milligan 


Do. do 


7,310 14 




lames Rankins 

Charlei W. Sparks 


Do. do 


'2,^55 47 




Do. do 


13 46 




Robert Lowrey 


Do. do 


i.:;.> 44 


__ 


Ifenry J. Kpley 


Do. do 


1,241 32 




William Hughes 


Do. do 


1,040 24 




James S. Mediums 

John (r. Alexander 


Do. do... 


II 06 


__ 


Do. do. 


4,61 



102 



SECTION Ho. 3.— Continued. 



1850. 








Not. 15, 


Robert S. Winn 


ntendenee and Repairs __ 


81.672 42 


__ 


Stephen Harbaugh 


Building pile driver. Ace. 


127 55 




Brown <k McConnell ._• 


[jocks 29 and 30, south _. 


250 00 




Do. do 

Do. do 1 


Do. do 


2,000 CO 




Do. do 


: o oo 




Do. do. 


Repairing locks, 20 and 21__ . 


185 92 


_. 


$. W. Brown 


Rebuild:: _ tw piers, 3 


167 4fl 




Do. 


Do. do... 


570 80 




Brown neU 


mtib 


4.419 34 




H. Lathroo _. 


Building lock gates and I 


3:4 00 




Brown or McConnell ... 


-q piers, Circle. A 


MO 00 




berlin <k Crawford 


^Vater lime, for aqueduct 


61 20 


__ 


Brown & MeConneli 


Rebuild, piers, Circle, acueduc- 


1,000 00 




Do. 

hi <k Denton 


Do. do 


: soo oo 


.. 


Do. Lock 27 and 23, ■;■.-.: 


; ,ooo co 


-- 


Stephen Harbaiigh 


Lock gates as per contract 

For the year 1850, .. 


370 00 




53. "33 56 


1851. 








Nov. 15, 


Benrv J. Epley 


Superintendence and Repairs .. 


6,031 31 




Wm. Hushes 


Do. do. . 


4,833 40 




lames S. McGinnis 

Gr. Alexander 


Do. do.. 


4.332 69 




Do. do. 


5.537 81 




Robert S. Wvnn 


Do. do. 


939 92 




Stridden & Cams 


49, 51, 52, 55 


1.000 00 




Brown <sj McConnell. _ 


Do. 2 piers. Circleville aque, 


e:o oo 




Ison <k Denton 


Do. Locks 27 and 23, Bouth 


7C0 00 




StricUei :: Cams 


Do. 4?, 51, 52 & 55, S. 


800 00 




m 

3rown & McConnell.. 


Do. 27 and28 


: o co 




las: pier, Cn deduct 


526 89 




» <k Denton 


Rebuild. Locks, 27 k 23, south 


1,670 28 




t! Ac Cams 


Do. 49, 51, 52 ani 55. 


1,50 J 00 




_: Blair 


Do, Stone culvert 


1.300 00 




Strickler & Cams 


Do. 49, 51, 52 and 55. 


1,000 00 




Do. 


Do. do.. _. 


3,000 00 




William Blair . 


Do. Stcne culvert 


00 00 




lberlin & Crawford 
Cams 


Hvdraulic lime 


217 75 




Bel -:A. locks, 49, 51, 52, 55. 


3,000 00 




n Blaii 


Do. Stony Creek culvert... 


2.000 CO 




del cj Cams 


Do. Locks 49, 51. c2. 55 . 


4,70Q 00 




William Blair... 


Do. Stony Creek Culvert.. 


1,800 00 




s 


Do. Locks 49, 51, 52, 55.. 


1,413 21 




m Blair 


Do. Stonv Creek culver! __ 


1,000 00 


-- 


: S. Wjmi 


Do. Super, aid Repairs-, _ 


540 00 




653.393 26 



103 



SECTION No. 3.— Continued. 







1851. 




1852. 


Henry J. Epley 


Superintendence and Repairs _ . 


$6,998 87 


Nov. 15 


William Hughes 


Do. do 


11,076 16 




James S. McGinnis 


Do. do 


6,910 81 




John G. Alexander 


Do. do 


8,785 16 




Brown & McConnell 


Rebuilding locks, 15, 16, 17, S. 


1,000 00 




William Blair 


Waste gate at Westfall - 

Stoney Creek culvert 


2,800 00 




Do 


176 31 





John A. Wheeler 


85 pounds Hydraulic lime 


116 88 




Hully, Hughes & Co... 
Simeon Denton 


190 Do . 


255 31 




Rebuild, towpath bridge, L. W. 


300 00 




William Blair 


Waste gate at Westfall 


250 00 




Simeon Denton 


Rebuild, towpath bridge, L. W. 


250 00 




M. Cook_„. 


Stone for locks 


200 00 




H. S. Eckhart 

Simeon Denton 


Do 


50 00 




Rebuild, towpath bridge, L. W. 


242 75 




J. G. Clem. 


Do. lock 25 and 26, south 
For the year 1852 


1,200 00 




Henry J. Epley .. 




"" 


840,612 26 




Superintendence & Repairs 




1853. 


$10,548 74 


Nov. 15 


William Hughes 


Do. do 


11,744 73 




James S. McGinnis 


Do. do 


7,299 66 




John G. Alexander 


Do. do 


6,636 58 


_ 


J. G. Clem 


Rebuilding locks, 25, 26, south 


1,600 00 




William Blair 


D o. waste gate at Westfall 


87 00 




Chamberlain, Crawford, 
Lawson & Waterman.. 


Water lime 


136 75 




Building boarding boat__. 


550 00 




G. W. Herod 


Lumber for Circle'lle aqueduct 


1,150 00 




Joseph G. Clem 


Rebuilding locks 25 and 26 


6,300 00 




Ambros & Lenos, 

M. Bright & Co 


Making lock irons ... 


30 00 




Do. butts, &c, for aqueduct . 


900 00 


.. 


Simeon Denton 


Rebuild. Aqueduct, Columbus, 








and T. P. bridge 


1,000 00 


-- 


Strickler & Cams 


Do. Locks, 49, 51, 52, 55, S. 
For the year 1 853 


138 00 




$48,021 41 








1854. 




Nov. 15 


Elliott 


Superintendence and Repairs _. 
Do. do 


82,483 11 




W. Hayes 


2,823 74 




H.J. Epley 


Do. do 


•1,777 40 




J. G. Alexander 


Do. do... 


2,121 94 




All Supterintendents 


Do. do 


13,144 78 




Clem & Freeland 


Rebuilding lock 24, Snuth 


16 28 




Simeon & Dulvin 


Do. aqueduot and bridge.. 


146 31 




Martin k McGinn 


Do. lock 23, South 


6,90-1 78 




M. Bright 


Making boats for aqueduot 

For the year 1864, 


93 2 










140,361 63 









104 

SECTION No. 3.— GoDtinued. 



RECAPITULATION. 

Expenditures for the year 1849 _ $49,171 40 

Do. do. 1850 _ 62,733 56 

Do. do. 1851 _ 53,393 £6 

Do. do. 1852 40,612 25 

Do. do. 1853 ___ 48,021 41 

Do. do. 1854 _ 40,351 63 

Total for six years _ $284,283 51 

Average yearly cost for six years $47,380 58 



TESTIMONY. 

The following is the Testimony taken by the Committee in the Progress of the Investi- 
yation, and referred to in the preceding Report, 



[No. 1.] DEPOSITION OF I. J. RICARDSON. 

Answer of I. J. Richardson, of Delaware, Ohio, to interrogatories concerning 
Myron II. Mills, as a bidder for repairs of the Public Works of Ohio. 

To the first interrogatory — I am acquainted with Myron H. Mills, who was a 
bidder at the lettings of the repairs of the Public Works of Ohio, in November, 
1855. 

To the second interrogatory — the said Mr. Mills is a contractor upon public 
works, and as such, has had much experience in contracts for the enlargement of 
the Erie and Oswego Canals, in the State of New York. He resides at Rochester, 
in said State. 

To the third interrogatory — I know, personally, all the persons named as his 
securities, to wit: Theodore G. Mills, John M. Hughes, of Cleveland, and John 
Vernan, and Hiram F. Mills, of Mount Morris, New York. T. G. Mills has been 
my partner in busines, and I believe him to be worth about forty thousand oil are. 
Mr. Hughes' pecuniary circumstances I have not been acquainted with (or t e last 
four years. I knew him formerly as a man of a good deal of means, and as an 
experienced, safe and judicious business man, and know of no materia] change in 
his circumstances, or character, since. Mr. Vernan is a gentleman of large means, 
reputed to be worth about $200,000, more or less. He is one of the oldest and 
most experienced canal contraciors in the State of New York, and I am informed, 
and believe, that he and H. F. Mills, above mimed, are now, and have been for 
some time past, copartners with the said Myron II. Mills, in contracts lor the 
enlargement of the Oswego Canal, and I feel confident that the two former would 
not have united with the latter, in such contracts, had he not been altogether com- 
petent and trustworthy. H. F. Mills is a wealthy man, estimated to be worth from 
$100,000 to $200,000. 

To the fourth interrogatory — I am not acquainted with the pecuniary respond- 
bility of (ho said Myron H. Mills. 

To the fifth interrogatory — This is substantially answered above 1 h. lieve the 
extent of the pecuniary responsibility of Mr. Mills' security to be in (he neighbor- 
hood of $'100, POO, and taking into consideration the character ol the nun. 1 do 
not believe that better security, lor the amount, can be obtained. 

I further state that Mr. Steedman, Prest of the Board, stated thai Mr Mills' 

propositions were rejected fctoause his securities resided out iA' the Stale. 

1. J. RICHARD 



106 

[No. 2 ] DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL DOYLE. 

I was one of the company of Saml. Doyle & Co., who bid on Section 1, of the 
Public Works, in November, 1855. The company consisted of myself, Thomas 
Miller, and, I think, (but am not certain about it,) Saml. G. Foster. We bid 
$24,935; our bid was in good faith, and we desired the work at that price, and 
had informed ourselves of the previous cost, by a thorough inquiry. I ha\e been 
engaged, more or less, on Public Works, ever since 1824, or '25. We considered 
the price a fair one, and that reasonable profits could be realized by doing the work 
at that price. We proposed Wm. Dickey, Saml. Galloway, and Emanuel Cryder, 
for security, and I consider them amply responsible, and our bid was not objected 
to on the ground of our lack of responsibility, or the insufficiency of our securities. 
I think Dr. Griswold did say to me, that we had got enough without this section, 
and this was after the awards. SAMUEL DOYLE. 

Sworn to and signed before the Committee, June 23, 1856. 

C. S. HAMILTON, Chairman. 



[NO. 3 ] DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM MILLER. 

I, William Miller, being duly sworn, upon my oath do say, that I was a bidder 
on the Public Works, at the lettings in November, in 1855, on Section Number 
One, and that my bid on said Section was 824,800, per annum. Section Number 
One, includes the Ohio Canal from Roscoe to Cleveland, and the Walhonding 
Canal. The Commissioner, Dr. Griswold, informed me that the work had been let 
to A. Medbery & Co., at a higher rate than my bid, and upon my inquiring why 
the work was not awarded to me as the lowest bidder, he appeared rather confused, 
and gave me no definite answer. I bid upon this work in good faiih, and desired 
to obtain the contract for the sum specified, $24,800, which I believed quite 
sufficient to keep the section in repair. My securities were Oliver P. Hines, H. S. 
Knapp, William Trevitt, William D. Morgan, Asahel Chittenden, Dr. John 
Dawson, Jr., and Henry Miiler. I had the consent of all these gentlemen, to use 
their names as my securities, and I proposed to give any additional security, that 
might bp required by the Board. These gentlemen are worth at least $150,000. 
I am well acquainted with their circumstances. The Commissioner, Dr. Griswold, 
after the lettings, informed me that my securities were ample, and that my reputa- 
tion as a business man was all sufficient. No satisfactory explanation was ever 
given me, as to the reason why this contract was not awarded to the lowest bidder. 

I am one of the contractors, at present, on widening and deepening the Lancaster 
Side Cut Canal. WM. MILLER. 

Sworn to, and subscribed before me, on the 21st day of Oct. 1856. 

JOHN A. BLAIR, 

Chairman pro. tern, of the Com. on P. W. 



[NO. 4] DEPOSITION OF HENRY MILLER. 

I am acquainted with W. S. Y. Prentice ; he is a prompt, efficient, thorough 
business man, and a man of strict integrity. 

I am also acquainted with the following persons, offered by him as securities 
for the performance of his bid on Section No. 2. of the Public Works : C. J. 
Wetmure, W. H. Mitchell, E. C. Miiler, John K. Miller, and I believe them to be 
worth at least 8150,000. HENRY MILLER. 

Columbus, June 6th, 1856. 

Sworn to, and subscribed before me, by Henry Miller, June 6, 1856. 

C. S. HAMILTON, 

Chairman Com. P. W. 



107 

[NO. 5.] DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL DOYLE. 

I am one of the firm of Doyle & Miller, bidders and contractors on Section No. 2, 
of the Public Works of the State. Our firm consisted of myself, Thomas Miller, 
E. S. Hamlin, and Samuel Foster. Foster was an engineer for the Siate, on the 
Muskiagum Improvement, and perhaps on some other works, but on no part of 
Section Two. We subsequently bought his interest out, I think the next day after 
the awards. I think we allowed him forty- five hundred dollars. We gave E. S. 
Hamlin four thousand dollars ; we bought his interest on the 17th May. 

Lewis W. Sifford claimed afterwards, that he had declined to bid on this Section, 
on account of an understanding, I think with Foster, that he was to have an interest 
in the contract, or that some one of our firm, I think Foster, had intimated to him 
that he should have something, if he wou'd not bid, provided we got the contract. 
I think he talked with Foster. We gave him four thousand dollars. 

We had some conversation with Dr. Griswold, about taking Hamlin into our firm, 
I do not remember whether before or after we put in our bid, and he rather 
expressed a wish that we would take him in, or that he was gratified that we had 
taken him in. I think this talk was after the awards were made. 

L W. Sifford was an engineer on the Ohio Canal, on a part of Sections Two, and 
all of No. Three, and he is still an engineer on a part of Section Two, and on all of 
Section Three. 

It was understood at the time that we bid, that Mr. Foster had resigned as 
engineer, and I believe he had resigned. SAMUEL DOYLE. 

Sworn to before the Committee, June 23, 1856. 

C. S. HAMILTON, Chairman. 

[No. 6.] DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL G. FOSTER. 

Samuel G. Foster, being first duly sworn, deposeth and saith : 

Ques. Were you one of the firm of Doyle <fc Miller, bidders on section No. 2, 
and of the firm of Samuel Doyle & Co., bidders on section No. 1, of the Public 
Works ? 

Ans. I vas. 

Ques. Were you an engineer in the employment of the State, at the time these 
bids were made, and at the time the contracts were awarded on those two sections ? 

Ans. I was an engineer on the Hocking canal and the Muskingum Improve- 
ment, and in the employment of the State. On the 11th or 12ih"of November, 
and before these bids were put in, I made out a written resignation, and banded it 
to Dr. Griswold ; this was done in good faith, and with the full intention on my part 
that the resignation should take effect. 

Ques. How came it about that the resignation was not accepted ? 

Ans. Owing to the said firm, of which I was a member, getting no contract, 
only section No 2 and No. 4, 1 thought the interest was too small, as there were 
five of us in No 2, and four of us in No. 4, and I sold out my interest, immediately 
after the contracts were awarded lo us. 

Ques. What did you get for your interest in section No. 2 ? 

Ans. I got forty-five hundred dollars — part paid. 

Q es. Who were all the members of the linn on section No. 2 ? 

Ans, They w< re Samuel Doyle, Thos Miller. E. 8. Hamlin and Lewis W. Sif- 
ford, and myself; besides these, there were no others interested. 

Ques. Who is Lewis W. Sifford ? 

Ans, II i was, jis far as I know, and is now, an engineer on the BOUthern divi- 
sion ol the Ohio canal. I think he was an engineer on about two- thirds of what 
is now section No. 2. He was bought o.it before I was. He was to receive, as I 
recollect it, four thousand dollars. 



108 

Ques. Did you ever hear either of the members of the Board of Public Works 
say whether it was a matter of party or public policy that he favored the letting of 
the Public Works to be kept in repair by contract ? 

Ans. I never heard either of them say any thing about it, except I have heard 
Mr. Griswold say it would be beneficial to the State to let the Works out. 

Ques. Who were the original Lesees of the National road ? 

Ans. Joseph Cooper, Samuel Doyle and myself. 

Ques. Were there any other persons interested in it, directly or indirectly, or 
has any one else received, or is any one else to receive any thing from your com- 
pany, or any member of your company, or from any one else for them, or either of 
them, for any connection he has now, or has had heretofore, at any time, with the 
lease of the National road ? 

Ans. Not to my knowledge — since we took the lease Mr. Doyle bought Cooper 
out. 

Clues. Has any member of the present, or any former Board of Public Works, ever 
received any thing from your company, or any member of your company, in con- 
sideration of, or in consequence of, any connection he had at any time, or has now, 
or is to have hereafter, directly or indirectly, or contingently, with the letting or 
lease of the National road ? Or is any such person to receive hereafter, in any 
event, or upon any contingency, any thing in consequence of any connection with, 
or interest in, that lease, or for any services rendered, or to be rendered, by him, 
in aDy manner connected with the letting, or lease, or the modifying of your con- 
tract, for keeping the said road in repair ? 

Ans Not to my knowledge — except that we have paid E. S. Hamlin for profes- 
sional services, for examining the contracts, the law, &c, just as we have paid Mr. 
Hunter, Mr. Warden and others, for like services, but Mr. Hamlin has not had, nor 
has now any interest in it in any way. 

Clues. Has any member of the present, or any former Board, any interest m 
the lease or in the profits of it ? or has any such person had any interest whatever 
in the contract 1 

Ans> Not to my knowledge. 

Ques. Are you interested in any other contract for keeping the Public Works 
in repair, except section No. 2, as stated above ? 

Ans. I am not now — I was interested in section No. 4, (to wit : the Hocking 
canal,) myself, Samuel Doyle, Dennis M'Carty and E. S. Hamlin were bidders on 
this section in the name of Dennis McCarty, and that work was awarded to us, I 
sold out my interest in this section immediately after the contract was awarded to 
us, for which I was to get fifteen hundred dollars, for which I took a note. I had 
resigned be fore this bid was put in, as explained heretofore. 

Ques. Did your company or any of them pay anything to Forrer, Buit & Co., 
for declining to take this section ? 

Ans Not to my knowledge. 

Ques. Had the Board made out estimates of the average cost of the different 
sections for the last six years preceding the lettings, and were they exhibited to 
bidders prior to the lettings ? 

Ans. Shortly after the notice was given, I, in connection with S. Woods, a clerk in 
the employment of Samuel Doyle, went into the office of the Board of Public Works, 
and under o k to make out an estimate of the average cost of the several sections 
for the last six years. As Doyle and myself intended to bid, we were doing this at 
our own expense, for our own use. A few days prior to the lettings, Mr. Steed- 
man requested me to furnish my estimates of the cost of the sections. I declined 
as we had made them out for our own use, except that as 1 was engineer on the 
Muskingum Improvement, and the Hocking canal, I thought that the Board had 



109 

a right to require me to give my estimates on these works, and I gave them , and 
subsequently we gave them the totals of our estimates on each section ; but on the 
two sections under my charoe I offered to give the items. I showed my estimates 
on these two sections to all bidders and others who requested me to show it. 

The average cost of the sections as reported by the Board to the Senate on the 7th 
March, 1856, are substantially the same as those made out by myself and S. Wood, 
except on section 6, and on some of the sections the identical estimates made by 
me and S. Wood. On No. 8 I made no estimate. 

My estimate included superintendence, special superintendence, damages formate- 
rials, taken to repair, <fcc, and everything so far as I recollect, except engineer's 
salaries. It did not include the weigh lock at Cleveland, nor the lock- houses. 
My estimate included awards for damages, and it included all structures made during 
the period of six years, so far as I recollect. S. G. FOSTER. 



[No. 7.] DEPOSITION OF JOSEPH SHADDINGER. 

Joseph Shaddinger being sworn, says : 

I am of the firm of Cooper, Shaddinger & Co., bidders on the Fublic Works in 
November, 1855, and to whom the contract on No. 3 was awarded. The firm 
consisted of myself and Joseph Cooper, only. 

These bids were put in by Joseph Cooper, and, as I understood, in the name of 
Cooper & Co., and the term company was to represent myself. My name was 
added, I believe, by Mr. Cooper, and he omitted to erase the term company. 
There was never any one interested, in any manner, in the contract on No. 3 but 
myself and Mr. Cooper. I was acting for myself, and in no manner represented 
any one else. I sold my interest to Joseph Cooper. I never knew of any member 
of the Board of Public Works receiving any money, or other valuable thing, from 
any bidder or contractor, nor of any understanding by which any member is here- 
after to receive anything, in any event, or upon any contingency, from any bidder 
or bidders, or from any contractor or contractors, or from any one else, by tha 
procurement of any one in any way interested in, or connected with the bids or 
contracts ; and I never had any conversation with any member of the Board, in 
relation to the bids or contracts. 

There was an understanding between Mr. Cooper and myself, that, if we got 
enough of the work to warrant it, we would take in another partner, and it was 
understoood that Mr. McLean was to become interested ; but as we got only 
Section No. 3, he never took any interest in it, nor never had any connection with ii. 

J. SHADDINGER. 



[No. 8.] DEPOSITION OF DENNIS McCARTY. 

Dennis McCarty, being sworn, says: 

I was a bidder only on Section No. 4 of the Public Works, at the letiings m 
November last. Samuel Doyle, E. S. Hamlin, and S. G. Foster, were all who were 
interested. None of these parties are now interested except Samuel Doyle. I do 
not know what was paid to Foster, but we paid to Hamlin a thousand dollars, as I 
remember, for his interest. There was nothing paid to Forrer, Burt & Co., fot 
withdrawing their bids. I bid on Section No. 4, $9,940, and after the bids were 
opened, it was suggested to me by some one, I do not remember who, that if I 
would reduce my bid within the average, that the work would be awarded to me ; 
and I did modify my bid in accordance with this suggestion, and the work was 
awarded to me at $9,6*50. 



110 

The persons interested with me in the contract for -widening and deepening the 
side-cut at Lancaster, are William Miller, Thomas Miller, Samuel Doyle, and^ Geo. 
Foster. There are no others interested, in any manner whatever, to my knowledge. 
I had no assurance nor intimation, beiore the award, from any member of the 
Board, that I should have the work. I never requested William Hughes to put in 
a bid on this work. He did put in a bid. I understand that the other members of 
the company had agreed to pay Hughes something, I do not know how much ; I 
do not know whether it was paid or not. He demanded five hundred dollars, and 
I said it was a swindling game, and iefused to p ;y it, or any other sum, and I left, 
and as I left Doyle said to me, not to get in a passion ; and what was done after- 
wards, I do not know, nor whether they agreed to pay him three or five hundred 
dollars. 

My bid was put in by myself, and was in no manner altered afterwards, by 
myself, or any other person. DENNIS McCARTY. 

Sworn to before the Committee, at Lancaster, July 12, 1856. 

Attest: JOHN A. BLAIR, Clerk. 



[No. 9.] 

DEPOSITIONS OF HENRY MILLER AND E. E. SHEDD. 

I did bid on Section No. 4 of the Public Works, at the letting in November last. 
My bid was made in good faith, and I desired to take the contract at the sum 
named. 

My securities offered were, William Miller, Jonathan Miller, and Eli Miller. I 
am acquainted with the securities, and they are worth at least sixty thousand dollars 
in the aggregate. My bid was never objected to by the Board, to me, nor did I 
ever hear from them why my bid was rejected. After the contract was made with 
other parties, one of the Board of Public Works, viz : Dr. Griswold, told me that 
my bid was considered entirely responsible, but that the Board feared I would lose 
money at the price bid, and for that reason my bid was rejected. This statement 
is made in answer to interrogatories addressed to me by C. S. Hamilton. 

Columbus, June 6th, 1856. HENRY MILLER. 

Sworn to by Henry Miller, before me, and signed by him in my presence, June 
6th, 1856. C. S. HAMILTON, 

Chairman Com. on P. W. 

I am acquainted with Henry Miller's circumstances, and the extent of his pecu- 
niary responsibility is not less than thirty thousand dollars. This statement is 
in reply to interrogatories addressed to me by C. S. Hamilton. 

E. E. SHEDD. 
Sworn to by E. E. Shedd, before me, this 6th day of June, 1856. 

C. S, HAMILTON, 
Chairman Com. on P. W. 



[No. 10.] DEPOSITION OF E. E. SHEDD. 

Ques. Were you a bidder on Section No. 5 (Muskingum Improvement) of the 
Public Works of the State, at the lettings in November, 1855? 

Ans. I was. 

Ques. Was your bid objected to on the ground that you were not responsible, 
or because of the insufficiency of your security ? 

Ans. It was not. 



Ill 

Ques. What is the probable extent of the pecuniary responsibility of the 
persons offered by you as security; that is, Lorenzo English, Francis Carter, A, 
S. Decker, S, M. Smith, and Henry Miller? 

Ans. At least one hundred thousand dollars. 

Ques. Was your bid made in good faith, and did you really desire the work at 
that price ? 

Ans. It was made in good faith, and I did desire to take the work at the price 
named in the bid ; that is, at $18,999. 

(Signed) E. E. SHEDD. 

Sworn to, and smnel by E. E. Shedd, before me, May 28t\ 185 , at Columbus 

C.S.HAMILTON, 
Chairman Com. on P. W. 



[No. 11.] DEPOSITION OF I. J. RICHARDSON. 

Answer of I. J. Richardson to interrogatories concerning himself as a bidder for 
Repairs of the Public Works of Ohio : 

To the first interrogatory I answer — That I was a bidder for repairs on said 
Section No. 5, at the time above mentioned. 

To the second interrogatory I answer — That the work on said Section was not 
awarded to me, but on what ground I have never been informed. That it was not 
on the ground of the insufficiency of my securities, I have reason to believe, as 
Mr. Steedman, President of the Board of Public Works, acknowledged to me, that 
he was informed, before said Section was let, by a person entitled to confidence, 
that I was an experienced contractor, and that my own responsibility and that of 
my securities were sufficient. 

To the third interrogatory I answer — That I have been engaged in contracts for 
the construction of portions of the Erie and Genesee Valley Canals, in the State of 
New York, and for the construction of locks on the latter canal, and in other public 
works of a similar character in said State, in which I have had long experience as 
a contractor, and also have had experience as a railroad contractor in the State of 
Ohio. 

To the fourth interrogatory 1 answer — That, according to the best of my recol- 
lection, the following were among the names of my sureties, to wit : Hiram G. 
Andrews, and J. C. Evans, of Delaware, Ohio ; David H. Richardson, of Henrietta, 
Monroe county, New York; Robert J. Howland, of Cayuga county, in the latter 
State, and others. The pecuniary responsibility of the security whose names are 
above given, would not fall much, if any, short of half a million of dollars. | 

I further state that I am, and have been for near five years past, a resident of 
Delaware, Ohio, and have, within that period, as a contractor with others, constructed 
and completed sixteen miles of the Springfield, Mt. Vernon and Pittsburgh railroad, 
embracing some of the heaviest work to be found on any railroad in this State — 
that I am well known in Columbus, where my own pecuniary circumstances and 
those of my Ohio sureties above given, could have been ascertained without difficulty, 
had the information been wanted; and, that, for several clays prior to ami during 
the time ol said letting, I was at Columbus frequently, in the office of the Board of 
Public Works. 

I. J. RICHARDSON. 



112 

[No. 12.] DEPOSITION OF JAMES W. CROOKS. 

I, James W. Crooks, upon my oath, do say — That I am collector of tolls on the 
Hocking Canal, at Logan ; that I have resided here about fifteen years ; that during 
that time I have been well acquainted with the condition of the Canal, and I have 
never known it to be as much neglected as during the present season. 

Heretofore from ten to thirty hands were kept constantly employed in keeping it 
in repair, but this season comparatively nothing has been done. Bars have been 
suffered to form in the Canal, so as greatly to impede navigation. One of the bars 
at Boner's Lock, five miles west of Logan, and another at Green's, seven miles 
west of Logan, were formed in the Spring, and were not removed until the middle 
of October. 

About the middle of October, from six to twelve boats at a time, were detained 
at Boner's Lock, some of them from two to three days. Saw logs were suffered to 
float in the Canal, both East and West of this place, nearly all the season. 

I wrote to the Board of Public Works, giving information of the bad condition of 
the Canal. There could have been considerable more shipping done from Nelson- 
ville to Lancaster, from Nelsonville to Athens, and from Athens to Lancaster, had 
the Canal been kept in proper condition. I understand the contractor receives from 
the State, for keeping Section Number Four in repair, nine thousand six hundred 
and fifty dollars per annum ; and from the best information I can gain, I do not 
believe he has expended upon the work fifty dollars a month. 

JAMES W. CROOKa 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 30th day of October, 1856. 

J. W. LYONS, J. P. 

Signed in the presence of JOHN A. BLAIR. 

Logan, October 30, 1856. 



[No. 13.] DEPOSITION OF JAMES W. CROOKS. 

James W. Crooks, being recalled and sworn by me, to make full and true state- 
ments with regard to the supervision and care of the Hocking Valley Canal, sayeth 
further — That the engineer appointed on this Division of the Public Works, has, 
to the best of my knowledge, not been down the Yalley to Logan, Nelsonville or 
Athens, this season. I am well acquainted with Mr. Samuel G. Foster, and had he 
been down I should have known it. JAS. W. CROOKS. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 30th day of October, 1856. 

SAMUEL P. YANATTA,^ 
Notary Public, in and for Hocking county, Ohio. 

Signed in presence of JOHN A. BLAIR. 

Logan, October 30, 1856. 



[NO. 14.] DEPOSITION OF CHARLES W. JAMES. 

Charles W. James having been duly sworn, deposes and says : 

I have resided in Logan about twenty-four years. Heretofore, it has been 
usual for the State to keep a number of hands employed on this division of the 
Canal, sufficient to keep it in good repair, but this season, serious complaints hare 
been generally made, in regard to the manner in which the contractor has neglected 
the work. The firm, of which I am one of the partners, employed a boat to go to 
Nelsonvi'le for coal, in the latter part of August, and the boat was detained some 



113 

four or five days on a bar, and then it was impossible to bring up a full load. In 
my opinion, much more business could have been done this season on the Canal, 
had it been kept in better condition. 

I am well acquainted with the engineer in charge of this work, Samuel G. Foster, 
and I have not seen him along this Division of the Canal, this season. 

C. W. JAMES. 
Sworn to, and signed in my presence, this 30th day of Oct. 1856. 

JOHN A. BLAIR. 



[NO. 15.] DEPOSITION OF THOMAS MILLER. 

Thomas Miller being sworn says : 

I am one of the firm of Doyle & Miller, bidders on Section No. 2, of the Public 
Works. Our firm consisted of myself, Samuel Doyle, E. S. Hamlin, Lewi3 W. 
Sifford, and Samuel G. Foster. Samuel Foster is an engineer of the Muskingum 
& Hocking. Lewis W. Sifford was, and is now an engineer on the Ohio Canal, and 
is now the acting engineer over a portion of Section No. 2, I think about thirty-six 
miles. Samuel Doyle and myself are the only parties now interested in the contract. 
We bought out the interests of Foster, Hamlin and Sifford. I think we gave 
$4,000 to Sifford, $4,000 to Hamlin, and I think to Foster 84,500. These 
purchases were made on the condition that if the contracts were annuled, they 
were to refund the money with interest. I never heard any member of the Board 
say anything as to the reason why the contract was awarded to us, and not to other 
persons who put in lower bids than we did, prior to the time when the awards weie 
made pubiic. Myron H. Mills' bid was lower than ours, and I heard, I think, 
Mr. Steedman say that the Board had no knowledge of Mr. Mills, and it was not 
their buriness to go out into the streets to inquire. I never heard any mem. 
the Board say anything that indicated any intention on their part to award the 
contracts to men of particular politics. I know of no officer or clerk who received, or 
was offered, anything for any disclosures made, as to the average cost of keeping 
the various sections in repair. 

I was also one of the firm of Samuel Doyle & Co., bidders on Section No. 1. 
We bid, I believe, $24,985 ; bui this Section was let to A Medbery & Co., 1 
believe, for $27,500. I do not know that the members of the Boa 
by way of justifying themselves in so letting this Section. The securi 
by us, were Wm. Dickey, Samuel Galloway, and Emanuel Crydi k the 

securities were within the ; ■ .: 30,000. 

I know ol go persons receiving anything from any bidder, on condition that he 
should not bid on any Section. 

Section No. 4. I am acquainted with the securities offered by I r, on 

Section No. 4, to-wit : William Miller, Johnathan Miller,;. tier. Thev 

are worth perhaps, $150,000. 

LANCASTER SIDE- CUT. 

I was one of the firm that contracted to deepen 
Cut, in June, 1856. Th )ennia 

M'Carty, Samuel Doyle, ?) i , brother tc 

at the suggestion of 3 i 
the linn. 

On that work I put in a bid, 8 
a bid. and Dennis M' 
was put in for the benefit of all it was awa 

8 RBI'. JOINT CUM. PUB. v 



114 

which was the lowest one put in by any of us. Our object in puting in different 
bids was this : we could not tell beforehand but that some of our bids might be 
rejected, because some of us had other contracts on the Public Works ; or some of 
our bids might be rejected because of a want of responsibility, or for some other 
reason. 

William Hughes had put in a bid lower than either of ours, and he proposed to 
withdraw ihat bid, and demanded three hundred dollars for so doing ; and I drew 
a check for that sum, for him. Hughes' bid was nineteen cents per yard ; we got 
the work at thirty-three and one half cents. 

HOCKING CANAL. 

This work was awarded to Dennis M'Carty, I believe. E. S. Hamlin, Samuel 
Doyle, and Samuel G. Foster, were interested in the contract. Since the awards 
were made, M'Carty & Doyle have bought out Hamlm & Foster. I believe 
Foster got for his interest, a thousand, or more dollars. I think Hamlin got a 
thousand, dollars for his interest. 

THOS MILLER. 
Sworn to, and subscribed before the Committee, Oct. 24th, 1856. 

JOHN A. BLAIR. 



[NO. 16.] DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL M. YOUNG. 

Maumee Citt, November 19, 1856. 

Samuel M. Young being sworn, says : 

I am one of the contractors for keeping that part of the Public Works in repair, 
known as Section No. 6. Elijah Dodd and myself are the contractors, under the 
name of Samuel M. Young & Co. There are no other persons interested in the 
contract. Dodd and myself are equal partners. No other person receives, in any 
way, any portion of the profits. I know of no one who has had any interest, either 
in the contract, or the profits arising from it I put one bid of 832,000 in. 

The bids of John C. Allen & Co., EL H. Forsyth and J. M. Gloyd, were put in at 
my suggestion, and for my benefit. I first put in the bid of 832,000, and found 
shortly after it was put in, that it was known what my bid was, and 1 then put in 
the bid of H. H. Forsyth, of 328,000. After this, I received an intimation from 
J. G. Isham, or from E. Dodd. that Backus, of the firm of J. & W. Dickey & Co., 
had put in a bid of 824,900, or $25,000, and I then put in the bid of J. C. Allen 
& Co. I did not know that these intimations came from, or through, any member 
of the Board, or their clerk. 

I had heard it said, that James B. Steedman had said, if Dodd went into 
partnership with me our heads would be cut off, or something to that effect. I had 

heard that he had said so to Dickenson, of Fremont. I do not remember 

who told me. 

I never received any intimation from James B. Steedman, that he intended 
Dodd and myself to have this contract, nor did I ever receive any intimation from 
any other person, that it was intended that we should have this contract. Dodd is, 
or has been a brother-in-law of J. B. Steedman. 

I have no recollection of ever having any consultation with Jonathan Burt, 
Wash. M'Lean, or Joseph Cooper, or E. S. Hamlin, in relation to the lettings, prior 
to the lettings, or any other person in their interest, or in any way connected with 
them, to my knowledge. 

Ques. Did you pay any money, or other valuable thing, to anj member of the 
Board, or to any person for any one of them to secure the contract ? 



115 

Ans. I did not in any shape, or agree to. 

Ques. Did you pay any money to any one to secure the withdrawal of the hid 
of J. & W. Dickey & Co. 

Ans. I paid no money. 

Ques. Did you give any note or notes, or agree in any way to pay any thing 
to secure the withdrawal of that bid ? 

Ans. I gave four notes, each for one thousand dollars. I have paid two of 
them. 

Ques. Was there an estimate of the average cost of Section No. 6 exhibited 
to bidders ? 

Ans. I think Mr. Blickensderfer told me it cost about 845,000. I never saw 
an estimate that was made by the Board. Dodd and myself made an estimate, 
and we relied upon this and estimates made by others. There was never any in- 
timation given that it co3t less than the sum named by Mr. Blickensderfer, which 
eome from the Board, or from any clerk in the office, or any one in any way con- 
nected with the office of the Board, or with the Public Works. 

Ques. Is there any understanding, that any person who was a member of the 
Board of Public Works at the time of the lettings, is to receive anything from you 
or from Mr. Dodd, in consequence of any connection he has with the contract; or 
is any such person to receive any thing from you or Mr. Dodd, on any condition, 
or in any contingency whatever ? 

Ans. There is no understanding that any such person is to receive any thing, 
on any condition, or any contingency from me ; or, so far as 1 know, from Mr. 
Dodd. And no such person has any interest, or is to have, upon any contin- 
gency, in the contract, or the profit of it, so far as I have any knowledge, intima- 
tion, or belief. 

The reason of my putting in the subsequent bids of Forsyth, and Allen & Co., 
was, that I had an intimation that Backus had found out what my bids were, and 
had underbid me. I had before made up my mind that he should not have it at 
any price — he having, by being engineer, perfect control in directing the vote of 
all the employees of the canal. 

The proposition of Backus, for Dickey & Co., was, that if their bid was with- 
drawn, and the contract should be awarded to me on the bid of H. H. Forsyth <fc 
Co., of 828,000, then I should pay them 84,000. This I agreed to, and after the 
contract was awarded to Samuel M. Young & Co., I still felt bound to carry out 
the spirit of the agreement, as they said they understood it, though I did not so 
understand it, and accordingly the notes were given, payable in one year. 

Elijah Dodd knew nothing of the other bids ; that is, those of H. 11. Forsyth, 
John C. Allen and J. M. Floyd, being put in until subsequent to the time of the 
lettings. I aiterward informed him of it, and also that I was to pay $4,000, but 
I do not know that I told him that it was to be paid to Dickey & Co. 

SAMUEL M. YOUNG. 

Sworn to and subscribed before the Committee, this 19th day of November, 1856, 
at Maumee City. 

JOHN A. BLAIR. 

Maumee Cut, Nov. 21, 1856. 

Samuel M. Young, being re-called, says : 

The bids of H. II. Forsyth, J. M. Floyd, J. C. Allen & Co., and Samuel M 
Young & Co., were all written by him, and thinks he disguised his hand-1 
in two of the bids, but does not remember which two. He had a conversation 
with Dr. Oscar White, who said he had had ion with Mi. Conover, num- 

ber elect of the Board, and was assured by him that if any of the oontracton 



116 

thought they had taken the contracts too low, after that fact was ascertained, there 
would be no objection, he presumed, by the Board, to their relinquishing the 
contracts, or at leas!, he should urge rso objections, and he felt secure in putting in 
the subsequent bids, which were in the names of Floyd, Forsythe and Allen. He 
felt at the same time that his bid of 332,000 was as low as he could do the work, 
and he is of the same opinion now. 

SAMUEL M. YOUNG. 



[No. 17.] DEPOSITION OF ELIJAH DODD. 

Elijah Dodd, being sworn, says : 

I am one of the contractors for keeping in repair that part of the Public Works 
known as Section No. 6. Samuel M. Young and myself are the contractors on this 
section; there are no other persons interested in the contract ; there has never been 
any person interested in it beside Young and myself. No other person, to my 
knowledge, has received, or is to receive, any portion of the profits arising from 
the contract. Mr. Steedman did not suggest to me to form a partnership with 
Samuel M. Young. I once asked Mr. Steedman if a bid of Mr. Young and my- 
self would be considered good, and he thought it would. We were both at Colum- 
bus at the time of the lettings, and I think Mr. Young wrote and put in the bid. 
I have one half the contract, and Young has the balance, and we divide the profits 
equally. There are no writings between us ; the contract is a verbal one. Mr. 
Young Las, up to this time, drawn the checks ; but there is no understanding that 
he is to do it, and that I am not to do it. 

I do not know that Mr. Young ever paid any thing to John C. Allen, or any 
other person, to induce them to decline to take this section on the bid of John C. 
Allen & Co. I never paid any thing to any one, to have that firm decline to take 
that contract. 

I do not know who composed the firm of J. & W. Dickey & Co., further than 
appears from the names given in I do not know whether Abner L. 

Backus was one of that firm or not ; I have heard it said that he was a member of 
some firm of bidders, but do not know whether it was the firm of J. & W. Dickey 
& Co. or not. I think, perhaps, it was this firm. 

I never gave any thing to any one to induce the firm of J. & W. Dickey & Co. 
to decline taking the contract on Section No. 6 at their bid. Mr, Young has done 
all the financiering of our firm, and I do not know that he paid any thing for that 
purpose ; nor do I know that he has agreed to pay any thing, to any one, for that 
purpose. 

Question. Has not Mr. Young intimated to you that there were some obligations 
to discharge, cr some debts to pay, which were in some way connected with the 
withdrawal of the bids of John C. Allen & Co., and J. & W. Dickey & Co., or 
having something to do with your getting the contract at your bid ? 

Answer. He has not intimated to me that we were in any way bound to pay 
any thing, or had incurred any debt for any such purpose as indicated in the ques- 
tion. He has told me that there were some debts made, which he did not explain 
to me, and I do not know their amount, or for what they were incurred. 

ELIJAH DODD. 



117 

[No. 18.] DEPOSITION OF ABNER L. BACKUS. 

Abner L. Backus being first sworn says : 

I have been an engineer of the State on the canal from Manhattan to St. Marys; 
and to the State line, this was from April, 1851, to January, 1856. 

I was one of the firm of J. & W. Dickey & Co., bidders onSection No. 6, at 
the lettings of the Public Works to be kept in repair, in Nov. 1 855, our bid was 
$24,900. 

Ques. What induced your firm to decline to take that contract at your bid ? 

Ans. So far as I am concerned it was withdrawn because I thought more money 
could be made by withdrawing the bid than by taking the contract. I heard no 
intimation from any one, nor did any one of our firm, to my knowledge receive any 
intimation that we were not to have this section at our bid. 

Ques. Did you receive any money or other valuable thing for withdrawing your 
bid on section No. 6 ? 

- Ans. I received from Samuel M. Young a thousand dollars for withdrawn 
bid. It was understood that each member of our firm was to receive a thousand 
dollars. There were four of us : J. Dickey, W. Dickey, Samuel Doyle, and 
myself. 

Ques. Was there an understanding that any other person was to receive any 
share of this money 1 

Ans. Not to my knowledge. No one ever got a dollar from me, either di 
or indirecty — nor did any one of our firm, to my knowledge, ever pay, . 
pay, any portion of it to any one. 

Ques. Who made out the estimate of the average cost of sections No. 6 and 
No. 7? 

Ans. I do not know who made them out. An estimate of the average cost of 
repairs was made out by some one, and laid upon the desk of the secretary, for 
several days, about the time of the lettings. We relied upon an estimate of the 
average cost made oy ourselves. 

Ques. It appears from the report of the Board made to the Senate March 7, 
1 856, that the average cost of section No. 6, as exhibited to bidders, was $45 971 17, 
was this more than the actual cost ? 

Ans. I am not able to state. 

Ques. Were you one of the firm of J. & W. Dickey & Co. — bidders on se 
No. 7? 

Ans. I was. The firm was composed of J. Dickey, W. Dickey, Samuel Doyle 
and myself. We wire all well acquainted with the canal on this section, and we 
believed we could make money on the work at our bid of 899,900. I have been 
an engineer for the State most of the time since 1838. The Dickeys had 
connected with the canals for some 25 to 30 years as contractors, and are men of 
great experience in the management of works of this kind, and are nun of undoi 
responsibility and integrity. No reason was ever given, so far as I kno 
of us by any member of the Board why they did not award this contract to us 
objection was ever made, that I ever heard of, to our firm because it was not ri- 
sible, or did not offer good security. ABNER L. BACKCS. 



[No. 19.] DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL DOYLE. 

J. & W. Dickey <fc Co., bid on Section 6 ; that company was J. and XV. Di 
A. L. Backus and myself. Our securities were the same as those on No. 7. We 
withdrew our bid ; Backus withdrew the bid'; and I understood from him that we 



118 

could get something, I think from Young & Co, if we would withdraw. Young 
never spoke to me about it ; I never got any thing ; I do not know that any of the 
company got any thing, but it was understood that we were to have something ; and 
I was to have a thousand dollars if they done well on the contract. Backus was 
an engineer on this section at this time. 

SAMUEL DOYLE. 
Sworn to before the Committee, June 23, 1856. 

C. S. HAMILTON, Chairman. 



[No. 20.] DEPOSITION OF E. S. HAMLIN. 

E. S. Hamlin, being first duly sworn, deposeth and says : 

I was one of the firm of Doyle & Miller, bidders on Section No. 2, of the 
Public Works, at the lettings in November, 1 855 ; at the time of the execution of 
the contract, Doyle, Miller, and myself were interested, and, as I understood at 
the time of the bid, Samuel G. Foster was a partner, but Mr. Steedman refused to 
execute the contract while any engineer was interested in it. I was informed by 
Foster and Dr. Griswold that Foster had resigned at the time we put in our bid, 
having failed to obtain Section No. 3, on which he, with myself, was a bidder ; 
Foster desired to act as engineer, Mr. Steedman refused to let any one be inter- 
ested in a contract and an engineer at the same time. I understood that Lewis W, 
Sifford was to be considered a partner in the bid and contract, and was to resign 
his engineership in case we got the contract. We bought Foster out and paid him 
forty or forty-five hundred dollars, I do not know which. It was understood 
that Sifford was interested in the bid on Section No. 3, and was to be a partner 
with myself and Foster in case we got the contract, and we failing to get only 
Section No. 2 he preferred to remain as engineer to being interested in the single 
contract on Section No. 2 ; and hence, did not resign as was his intention, as I under- 
stood at the time. We bought him out, and paid him four thousand dollars. I 
think we bought him out at the session of the Board, at which we entered into the 
contract. 

My interest in the contract of Forrer, Burt & Co., in Section No. 7, is that of an 
attorney, and I have been their attorney from the origin of the company ; beside 
this, I have never had any interest. 

Mr. Steedman mentioned the project of letting the Public Works for repairs to 
me some time in the latter part of the summer or early part of tae fail of 1855. 
Mr. Steedman employed me to examine the law, and see if the Board had a right 
to let the works to be kept in repair. I did so examine, and assisted in counselling 
the Board as to the manner in which it should be done ; and I aided in drawing up 
the notice, and compared the specifications with the statute to see if they were in 
conformity to law, and after that I was in no way in their employment. 

I have no recollection of hearing Mr. Steedman say anything with regard to the 
political bearings of the measure. 

I am acquainted with most of the securities offered by Cooper, Shadinger & Co., 
and I believe them to be worth, at least, a million of dollars. 

E. S. HAMLIN. 

Attest : J. A. BLAIR, Secretary. 

Columbus, July 13, 1856. 

[Memorandum, Columbus, Jult 13, 1856. 
The committee asked Mr. Hamlin, in substance, these two questions : 
1st. Who all are, or have been, interested in the bid on contract No. 7, or the 
profits arising from it ? 



119 

2d. Is there now or has there ever been any member of the Board of Public 
Works interested in, or connected with, that bid or contract ; or is there now, or has 
there been any understanding that any member of the Board is to receive any 
portion e/ the profits of that contract upon any condition or contingency, either 
directly or indirectly ? . 

[Both these questions Mr. Hamlin refused to answer, alleging, by way of justifi- 
cation, that he knew nothing about who were interested in that contract, or what 
they had done, or were to do, only what he had learned by being their attorney ; 
and that as he had no knowledge only what he had got by being in that relation 
to the company, he must decline to answer, unless authorized to do so by the 
company, any question the effect of which was to draw out of him what had been 
communicated to him in confidence as their attorney. 

On this representation the committee concluded not to press the questions, but 
intimated that their decision was not final, and that they held the point for advise- 
ment. C. S. HAMILTON. 

PAUL WETHERBEK] 

[No. 21.] DEPOSITION OF E. S. HAMLIN. 

Cincinnati, Dec. 10, 1856. 

E. S. Hamlin being sworn, says : 

My interest in the contract on Section No. 7, of the Public Works, is that of an 
attorney, and I receive one half of the nett proceeds of the contract for my services. 
I act as Secretary of the company, and also, as its disbursing agent, and am respon- 
sible for the funds, and I am also to employ any legal assistance that may be 
needed. 

So far as I know, Samuel Forrer, Joseph Cooper, John S. G. Burt and myself as 
above stated, and no others, are interested in Section No. 7, and there has never 
been, to my knowledge, any other person interested in it, except that John Howard 
was the owner of one- sixth of it which he sold to Joseph Cooper. 

I know of no person who was a member of the Board of Public Works at the 
time of the lettings, in 1855, who has received, or is to receive anything valuable 
from any member of any company having a contract, cither by way of loan or 
otherwise, for anything done or promised to be done by him, in connection with the 
lettings or the contract. 

Mr. Forrer ownes one-sixth of this contract. Mr. Cooper owns one-sixth, and 
Mr. Burt one-sixth. 

Question. Is there now, or has there ever been any understanding that you are 
to share the profits of your interest in Section No. 7 with any person who was a 
member of the Board at the time of the lettings, or who is now a member of the 
Board, on any condition, or upon any contingency, whatever 1 

Answer. There is not now, nor never was any such understanding. 

E. S. HAMLIN. 

[Memorandum, Cincinnati, Dec. 10, 1856. 

E. S. Hamlin being present before the committee, the Chairman desired to 
swear him and examine him further in relation to his knowledge ol\ and connection 
with the lettings of the repairs. And Mr. Hamlin re 
Cooper should come in, who was expected in soon, alleging as 
the request, that the committee had asked him mer examination 

questions to which he could not make direct and full answers without disclosing 
matters which he learned from occupying the relation v\' attorney to Forrer, Burt 



120 

& Co., and as he was their attorney he did not want to do so unless authorized by 
some one of the company, and Mr. Cooper might represent the company — and if 
he said so, he would answer the questions. 

Mr. Cooper came in, and after some little time, the matter was mentioned to 
him by Mr. Hamlin, and he agreed to Mr. Hamlin doing as he pleased about it ; 
that he had no objections to his answering any question^that might be put to him, 
on the ground of his being the attorney of the company. And thereupon Mr. 
Hamlin was sworn and the above testimony was elicited. 

C. S. HAMILTON.] 

[No. 22.] DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL DOYLE. 

I was one of the company of J. & W. Dickey & Co., who put in a bid on Section 
No. 7 of the Public Works of the State, at the lettings in November, 1856, and we 
bid $99,900. The company consisted of J. & W. Dickey, Abner L. Backus and 
myself, and no others. We had all been engaged on the public works of the State. 
Backus was ergineer for several years on the Miami and Erie Canal. J. Dickey 
and W. Dickey are citizens of Ohio, and have been very extensively engaged in 
building canals in Ohio and Indiana, and are noted for their energy and promptness 
in the fulfilment of their contracts, and for the faithful manner in which they meet 
their engagements. I have known them intimately, and have been engaged with 
them off and on upon the public works more or less ever since 1827 ; they are men 
of large property and undoubted responsibility, being worth from two to tnree hun- 
dred thousand dollars. I am acquainted with W. J. Finley, Robert Dickey, J. G. 
Isham, John Murphy, Daniel Sinkey, Samuel Dickey, and T.JL. Clark, who were 
offered by us as security, and they are all men of property, some of them wealthy, 
and worth in the aggregate from §250,000 to 8300,000. and we were ready to give 
just as much more as might be necessary to satisfy the Board. Our bid was not 
objected to, nor were our securities ; the bid was made in good faith, and we desired 
the work at the prices and I consider that the work can be done for that price, 
leaving a reasonable margin for profits. I know the work ironi one end to the other, 
and was fully informed as to the condition of the work. A great deal of work of 
a very durable kind had been done within a few years prior to the letting, and I 
think the expense of keeping it in repair for the next five years can not be as high 
as for the six years on which the average was made on which the lettings took 
place, or anything like it, 

SAMUEL DOYLE, 
rn to before the committee, June, 1856. 

C. S. HAMILTON. 



[No. \ DEPOSITION OF JOSEPH COOPER. 

Joseph Cooper, being first sworn, says : 

I am ore of the contractors for keeping the Third Section of the Public Works 
in repair ; the company consists of myself and Joseph Shaddinger ; so far as 1 
know, Mr. Shaddinger'and myself were the only persons interested in the bid, and 
not then understood by me that any other person was to be interested in it. 
I put in a bid upon the whole of the work except the Maumee Iload, understanding 
the law to be that, if my bid was lower in the aggregate than any other bids on the 
whole work, or upon several sections, then I would be entitled to the whole of it, or 
to so much of it as was covered by bids of mine which were lower in the aggregate 
than any other bids on the same Sections. My bid on Section No. 3 was accepted 



121 

but not further. Shaddinger was a bona fide partner, and the responsibilities and 
profits were to be equal. I have since bought his interest, and now own it, and 
have full control of the whole job. 

I have no knowledge of any person who was a member of the Board at the time 
of the lettings receiving any money or other valuable thing from any bidder or from 
any other person, by way of loan or otherwise, in consequence of any thin^ he did 
or promised to do in relation to awarding the contracts. 

I am now interested in the contract on Section No. 7 ; I bought out the interest 
of John Howard, which was one-sixth part of it. Mr, Forrer and Mr. Burt, and, as 
I understood, E. S. Hamlin owned the balance of the contract. Mr. Hamlin is the 
secretary and attorney of the company, and is the disbursing agent of the company. 
I have understood from Mr. Hamlin that he had an interest in the contract, but 
never understood the extent of his interest. I do not know the extent of Mr. Burt's 
interest now, but I think I understood from Mr. Burt and Mr. Hamlin, both, that Mr. 
Burt had transferred a part of his interest to Mr. Hamlin, for services to be rendered 
by Mr. Hamlin as secretary and attorney ol the company. I think Mr. Forrer 
owns a sixth part of the contract, and besides, he gets a salary for attending to the 
canal for the company. I do not know who owns the balance of this contract, but 
it is my impression that E. S. Hamlin owns it ; my impressions are all derived from 
conversations had with Mr. Hamlin and from Mr. Burt. I entered into a verbal 
agreement with Mr. Howard for his interest, a few days after the contracts were 
awarded. 

In relation to Section No. 3 I wish to explain. I have said above that I own the 
whole of it ; at the time I bought out Mr. Howard's interest in No. 7, he said to 
me that I ought to give Mr. Forrer an interest in Section No, 3, and I said I would 
give him a part of my interest if he, Mr, Forrer, desired it, and there has never 
been anything definite done about it since. 

It was understood by me that Washington McLean was to be interested with me 
in my contracts, in case we got any considerable portion of the works, as two or 
three or more sections, but as I got but the one Section, (No. 3,) he did not choose 
to take any interest. 

JOS. COOPER. 

Sworn to and signed before the committee, at Cincinnati, IVovember 10, 1856. 

C. S. HAMILTON, Chairman. 

Caleb B. Smith appeared before the committee as counsel for Mr. Coo 

J. A. BLAIR, Seer 



[No. 24.] DEPOSITION OF OSCAR WHITE. 

Oscar White being sworn, says : 

I was a bidder on Section No. 8, (the Western Reserve & Maumee Road,) at 
the lettings in November, 1855. 1 bid $3,750 ; I bid in good fail 
contract at that price. I had be 

believed I could keep it in repair for that Bum ; and L w< 
that price now. My bid was not ooj 
not offer good security ; I was r< 
Cook, were men of undoubted pecuniai 

I withdrew my bid because 1 was offered | de- 

clined to enter into a contract to do the work because >ffer ! that sum. 1 wrote a 
note to the Board Baying to then 
tioB ras ever made by any ini'iui: r of th( Board to tt 

9 — RFP JOINT COM. PUU. WORKS. 



122 

James J. Parks paid me the 82,000; Parks lives in Perrysburg, and is now the 
contractor. The contract was awarded to him, I believe, on the bid of M. Hays. 

0. WHITE, 
teworn to and signed before the Committee, Nov. 19, 1856, atMaumee City. 

JNO. A. BLAIR, 



[No, 25.] DEPOSITION OF JAMES J. PARKS. 

James J. Parks being sworr, says : 

I was one of the bidders on Section No. 8, of the public works at the lettings in 
November, 1855, and I am now the contractor. The section consists of the Wes- 
tern Reserve and Maumee Road. The contract was awarded to me on the bid of 
Michael Hays, which was put in by me. I was Superintendent of the Road at that 
time. 

Dr. Oscar White had put in a bid which was lower than mine, and, I think, as 
near as I recollect, he came to me and said he feared his bid was too low, and I 
thick he said to me he had been offered something to withdraw his bid, and asked 
me if I would take the road at his bid, and I told him I would not ; that in view of 
the condition of the road, I thought it could not be done for that money, and, if I 
mistake not, he asked me if I would give him anything if he would decline to take 
the contract, and I said to him that if it were awarded to me I would give him 
something, or make him a present, I think the language was ; and I subsequently 
gave him $2,000. I never had any intimation from any member of the Board that 
I should have this contract. I never paid, nor agreed to pay, anything to any one 
else but White, in order to get this contract. 

The metal, &c, was appraised about the first of December, 1855. There was 
some metal put upon the road between the time of the lettings and the appraise- 
ment of the metal, &c, I have no idea how much was put on. The weather was 
broken and wet, and no regular work was done. 

I am personally acquainted with R. P. Buckland and Henry Sweet ; they are 
responsible men. 

J, J. PARKS. 



[No. 26.] DEPOSITION OF JOHN HOWARD. 

John Howard being first duly sworn, says : 

That he was one of the firm of Forrer, Burt & Co., to which firm Section 7 of 
the repairs of the Ohio Canals was awarded. Samuel Forrer, John S, G. Burt and 
myself composed the firm. The contract was awarded to those three. Mr. Forrer 
was not present at the time of the letting, being sick at home, in Dayton, and con- 
fined to his room. He made out the calculations for me, being intimately ac- 
quainted with the repairs. I made the bid from his figures. He was considered 
the principal person in the contract, and, 1 suppose, it was given to us, principally, 
in consequence of his knowledge and skill in the management of the canal. He 
was not merely an employee but a partner in the contract, and, I believe, he is to 
this day. I do not know that he has ever sold out any of his interest. I stated 
that the work was let to the three persons above named. I do not state that I am 
now a partner ; I sold out my interest in it to Joseph Cooper some months after 
the letting, and that sale is, I believe, subject to the approval of the Board of Public 
Works; and, I believe, it has been approved by them. I do not know who com- 
pose the firm at this time ; I do not know who composed the firm of Cooper, Shad- 
dinger & Co. ; I was not a member of the firm. 



123 

I do not know that any member of the Board of Public Works had any interest 
directly or indirectly, in the contract which was awarded to us ; nor do I belief 
any member had any such interest, — nor do I know of any member having 
any interest in any way in any of the contracts. I do not know that any member 
of the Board has ever been employed, either directly or indirectly, by the company 
in any way — either for a salary or for a share of the profits, or in any capacity 
whatever, since the letting, or before the letting. 

The proposition to take this contract originated with Mr. Forrer, entirely; and he 
proposed that I should go up and make the bid, because of his sickness. Mr. Burt 
came to him and solicited a partnership, and he was strongly recommended by Mr. 
Schenck and others as a contractor. This was some weeks before the letting. 
When I went to Columbus I had obtained permission to take Burt in with us, or 
any other person in his stead, if I thought best. 

I bid with him, and the Board were told that we three, and we three alone, com- 
posed the firm. If any others were interested, it was by arrangement with Mr. 
Burt and he will know it. I did not bid with him with the purpose of making any 
illegal combination to defraud the State, and think the work was let at a f;dr price, 
without any partiality on the part of the Board, or favoritism ; and, as to any other 
persons who had, or may have, any interest in the contract, if there are any, I am 
confident it must have been by arrangement with Mr. Burt, and not with me, or, 
so far as I know, with Mr. Forrer; and as I stated before, I do not know who now 
have an interest in it. 

I am asked if W. McLean has an interest. I do not know that he has. I was 
asked by some one whether he had, and I asked him about it in January last, at 
Columbus, when he informed mehe ha d not, nor never had. 

The Hocking Canal was awarded to the same company, as I understood, and after 
consultation with Mr. Burt, we declined taking it, because it was so far from our 
other work, and none other on that canal being assigned to us. I wid statu that I 
did not receive any compensation for declining that work, nor do I believe Mr. Burt 
did. I know Mr. Forrer had nothing to do with it. I do not know nor believe 
that anything was offered or paid by anybody to us, or to any other person, directly 
or indirectly, to induce us to relinquish the job or contract. 

JOHN HOWARD. 



[No. 27.] DEPOSITION OF WASHINGTON McLEAN. 

Washington McLean being sworn, says : 

Question. Has any person who was a member of the Board of Public Works in 
November, 1855, any interest, directly or indirectly, in any of the contracts for 
repairs, or in the profits arising from them, or has he ever had 2 

Answer. Not to my knowledge. 

Ques. Do you know of any member of the Board at that time, who has 
received anything, or do you know of any understanding that he is to r 
anything, from any of ihe firms having contracts for repairs, or from any mi 
of any of the firms, or from any one else by the procurement of the firms or an? 
member of any of the firms, which is in any way connected with the awarding of th« 
contracts ? 

Ans. I do not 

Ques. Did you ever hear any member of the Board say, or in any manner hint 
or intimate, that certain parties should have contracts, and that certain other parties 
should not have contracts ? 

Ans. Subsequent to the lettings I heard Mr. Steedman say that he did not think 



124 

ono branch cf the government should dole out contracts to another branch of it, or 
give contracts to straw bidders. I understood him to refer to State officers and 
their clerks, -who were bidders as I understood. 

WASHINGTON McLEAN. 



[No. £8.] DEPOSITION OF JOHN J. ISHAM. 

John J". Isham being sworn, says : 

I was a bidder upon several of the sections, at the lettings in November, 1856, 
am now interested in the contract on Section No. 5 — the Muskingum Improve- 
ment. 

Three men, to wit : Becker, Chamberlain, and Fay of the State of New York, 
John Paul, R. H. Gilson and myself, were bidders on that section, under the name 
of Chamberlain & Paul, and the contract was awarded to us. Since this, I be- 
lieve that Becker, Chamberlain & Fay have been bought out. There has never, 
to my knowledge, nor is there now, any other person interested in it, in any way. 
I have no knowledge of any money being paid by our firm, or any member of it, 
to any one, in order to secure the contract. I have no knowledge of any under- 
standing that any person is to receive any thing from us, or from either of us, on 
any condition or contingencv. 

I was Superintendent at the time of the lettings of the eastern division of Miami 
and Erie Canal. I was with the appraisers when they appraised the property of 
the State on the Canal, from Waterville to Defiance. I think $2,000 would be a 
very low estimate for the paddle-gates, lock Ts, and other irons, &c, which were 
in the warehouse at Waterville, and which were appraised by the appraisers. I 
include in this estimate nothing only the irons, &c, in the warehouse at Waterville. 
I have no knowledge of any person who was a member of the Board at the time of 
the lettings, who has received, or is to receive on any contingency, any thing from 
any of the contractors. 

I understood that Mr. Paul and Mr. Gilson had bought out Becker, Chamber- 
lam & Fay, but do not know that this is the fact. 

J. G. ISHAM. 



[No. 29.] DEPOSITION OF R. H. GILSON. 

R. H. Gilson being sworn, says : 

I am one of the firm of Chamberlain & Paul, contractors on Section No. 5 of 
the Public Works.. Calvin T. Chamberlain, Barney Becker, John D. Fay, John 
G. Isham, John Paul, and myself, constitute the firm. I understood that Mr. 
Chamberlain divided his interest with a man named Parks, who was not known to 
me at that time. I knew nothing of Parks being connected with the transaction 
till after the lettings. No other persons, to my knowledge, have ever been inter- 
ested in it. 

Our bid was 827,000, or about that, and it was awarded to us at $25,000. I 
know nothing about what induced the Board to give us the contract at $25,000. 
The first and all I knew about it was from Mr. Chamberlain, who said that w* 
could get it at 825,000, and after consultation we agreed to take it at that price. 

I have no knowledge of any member of the Board of Public Works receiving, 
in any manner, either directly or indirectly, or by way of gift, or loan, or other- 
wise, any money, or other valuable thing, for reducing the tolls on the canals, or 



12S 

for reducing the tolls of any person running boats on any portion of the canals , 
nor do I know of any understanding that any member is ever to receive any thing 
for so doing. 

R. H. GILSON. 



[No. 30.] DEPOSITION OF LEWIS W. SIFFORD. 

Lewis W. Sifford, first being sworn, deposeth and saith : 

Question. How long have you been an Engineer in the employment of the 
State ? 

Answer. I was appointed in August, 1851. 

Ques. Had you any interest whatever in the contract of "William Hughes, for 
rebuilding Lock No. 31, south of Licking Summit? 

Ans. I had no interest whatever, nor do I know of any other person having 
any. 

Ques. How many perches of the old masonry were left in, and was it paid for 
as new masonry? 

Ans. Between three and four hundred perches of old masonry were left in the 
chamber of the lock, and it was not included in the estimate ot new masonry, nor 
was any allowance made to the contractor for it, or any work done on it, except 
$64 for champering the face to suit the batter of the new wall, and for cleaning it 
off, <fec. 

Ques. How long were you building Lock No. 311 

Ans. I think we were fifty-two days from the time we broke ground till we got 
it done. 

Ques. Were you a member of any firm or firms which bid on any of the sec- 
tions of the Public Works at the lettings in November, 1 

Ans. I was interested in the bid put in in the names of Doyle & Miller, on Sec- 
tion No. 2, and also in the bid of Hamlin & Foster, on Section No. 3. I sold my 
interest in Section No. 2, as soon as I found our firm had not got Section No 3, as 
I thought my interest in the single contract on Section No. 2 too small to justify 
me in resigning my post as Engineer, which I intended to do in case the firm of 
which I was a member should get Section No. 3. 

Ques. What did you get for your interest in Section No. 2 ? 

Ans. I sold for four thousand dollars. 

Ques. Are you interested in any of the contracts for repairing the public works 
now, or in any other contracts on the public works ? 

Ans. I am not. 

Ques. Have you received, or are you to receive any thing from Cooper, SI 
dinger <fc Co., or from any one for them, for services rendered, or to be rendered for 
that company, on Section No 3 ? 

Ans. I have never received any thing from that company, or from a 
them, or either of them ; nor is there any understanding thai ko re- 

ceive any thing, nor did that company, or any one for them, ever 
me any thing, except that at one time when it was I thai L would b 

moved from office, as there was a majority of "fusionists" in I, Mr. 

Cooper proposed to me, that if I should be dismissed, he would 1 mploy 

me to attend to Section No. :$. 

Ques. Have you any knowledge of any person, a member of the 
Public Works at the time of the 

time, or having now any interest, in any of those contracts, or any Other oont] 
on public works, or in the proOts arising from them in any way, or any conn 



126 

whatever with them, other than as members of the Board ; or do you know of any 
person then or now a member, who has received, or is to receive any thing from 
the companies having the contracts, or from any member of either of the compa- 
nies, or for any one for either of the companies, or any member of either of them, 
for any services rendered, or to be rendered, or for any interest he has had, or has 
now, either directly, indirectly, or contingently, in any of the contracts for keeping 
the public works in repair ? 

Ans. I have no knowledge of any such thing. 

Ques. Do you know whether the Board had a statement made of the average 
cost of the different sections for the six years prior to the lettings, for the use of 
bidders ? 

Ans. I do not know whether the Board had an average made cut or not. I 
assisted Foster in getting up a statement of the average expense on sections No. 2 
and No. 3, in the office of the Board at Columbus. I do not remember whether 
it was done by creer of the Board or i 

Ques. Had Emanual Gephard any interest in the contract or. lock No. 31 1 

Ans. He had none so far as I know. 

Ques, Were you present at the opening of the bids at the letting of the widen- 
ing and deepening of the Lancaster side cut, at Circleville, in June, 18c6 ? 

Ans. I was there, and assisted in opening the bids, and in making the compu- 
tations. The bid of Dennis M'Carty was lower than the bid of Leach; or as I 
understood on the day of th . oach and a young man named Foster. The 

bid of Roach, I think, was over thirty-three cents, and M'Oany's thiny-two and a 
half cents per cubic yard, for excavating, as I remember. William Hughs bid 
nineteen cents per yard, as I remember : and his bid was withdrawn, I think, iD 
writing. I understoood he got three hundred dollars for withdrawing his bid, from 
Dennis M'Carty, or some of the company. I understood the company to consist 
of Dennis M'Carty, Samuel Doyle, Miller, and, I understood, young Foster, a 
brother of Samuel G-. Foster. 

LEWIS W. SIFFORD. 

Sworn to before the Committee, at Chillicoche, Julv 10, 1856. 

Attest : JOHN A. BLAIR, Clerk. 



[No. 31.] DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM HUGEE3, 

William Hughes, being duly sworn, says : 

I was the contractor for building lock No. 31, South of Licking Summit ; no one 
was interested in it but myself, directly or indirectly, either in the contract or the 
profits arising from it; I gave no money to any one for getting the contract for me. 
The stone wall was not ail taken out, in the chamber of the lock; there was three 
courses, or parts of courses, left in ; no part of this was estimated to me as new 
work, and I got nothing for this, only -564, which was for champering the face of 
the old wall to suit the new wad, and dressing the bed. 

I was engaged on the work, putting in the lock, I think, fifty-two days. 

Emanuel Gephart was with us ail the time we were putting in the lock. He 
was there before we put in the lock, part of the time, as well as I recollect, 
once or twice a week, and took an account of the stone; ana he ca*ne to see if the 
work was properly progressing, at different times ; and the week be tore we began 
putting it in he was present ail the time; and I think he was there some days after 
the job was done; all of a week, I think. 

i put in a bid on the Lancaster Side Cut, for deepening and widening it, in June 
last. 



127 

Question. Did you put in that bid in good faith, desiring the work 7 at the prioe 
proposed ? 

Answer. I did not desire the work at the price. 

Ques. Did any one pay you any thing for putting the bid in, or did any one 
propose to pay you any thing ? 

Ans. I received nothing for putting in the bid, and no one proposed to pay me 
any thing for putting it in, 

Ques. What was your object in bidding ? 

Ans. My object was to make money, as I thought I might make something 
by it. 

Ques. Did you withdraw your bid ? 

Ans. I did in writing, on the day of thelettings, and before the awards. 

Ques. What did you get for withdrawing the bid ? 

Ans. I got three hundred dollars, of Dennis McCarty. 

Ques. Do you know all the men interested in that work ? 

Ans. I know only McCarty and Miller. 

WM. BUGHE& 

Sworn to before the Committee, at Circleville, July 10, 1856. 

Attest : JOHN A. BLAIR, Clerk. 



[No. 32.] DEPOSITION OF ARNOLD MEDBERY. 

I, A. Medbery, upon my oath do say, that I am one of the contractors on Section 
No. 1, Ohio Canal, for keeping it in repair; that it was awarded to R. EL Nugen, 
John Lau >head, Adolphus J. Dickenson and myself, under the firm of A. Medbery 
& Co.; that we received per annum twenty-seven thousand and five hundred dollars 
for keeping this section in repair. I was not aware that there was any 
bid or bids lower than our firm at the time we entered into the contract. I have 
never paid any money, or other valuable thing, to any person whatever, to procure 
this contract, nor has our firm done so to the best of my knowledge and belief. 

ARNOLD MEDBERY. 

B s'ornto before me, this 22nd day of Dec, 1856, at Roscoe. 

JOHN A BLAIR, Chairman, 'pro tem. 



[No. 33.] DEPOSITION OF f SAMUEL G. FOSTER. 

Samuel G. Foster, being sworn, si 

Ques. Have you been on the Hocking Canal the past summer ? 

Ans. I have not been over the whole of it si;: My tima 

from about the first oi July to the 20th of October, was chiefly spent necessarily on 
the contract for deepening and widening the Lane at. 

Ques. Was there any ur >ur in- 

terest in the contract oi oondi 

the coi condition ? 

Ans. There was no such und< ^unconditional, 

fid: sa e [ havi bought an} in it. 

Glues. did McCarty & D n u p 

repairs ? 

Ans. J. know they 1 e force up to about the 27th of June, and 

that time I do not know the amount of force they kt i 



128 

October, from which time to the close of navigation they had a sufficient force of 
men, beside horses and oxen. 

Ques. Did they always obey your instructions, and do the work you required, 
when you required it ? 

Ans. They always did, I believe. 

Ques. Was there much complaint of the management of this section ? 

Ans. I received a letter from the collector at Logan, through Dr. Griswold, 
stating that there was a bar at Boner's Lock, and one at Chauncy, and perhaps at 
Green's, and I immediately told McCarty about it, and he went, as he told me, and 
had them removed. I gave positive instructions to McCarty in this case, and heard 
soon afterwards that the bars had been removed. 

The reason why I did not give more of my attention to the lower end of the 
Hocking Canal than I did, was this — my whole time was required, and my whole 
attention given, to the Muskingum Improvement, and the contract for deepening 
and widening the Lancaster side cut. I was over the canal as far as Boner's Lock. 

Ques. Was there any proposition made by yourself, or any other member of 
your firm, to L. W. Sifford that if he would not bid on Section 2, he should have an 
interest in your bid 1 

Ans. I made no such proposition, and I know of none being made. I und«r- 
stood that he was to be a partner in the bid of Dovle & Miller, on Section No. 2, 
from the start. S. G. FOSTER. 



[No, 34.] DEPOSITION OF JOSEPH COOPER. 

CnrcnwATi, Dec. 29, 1856. 

Joseph Cooper, being sworn, says : 

Ques. How came you to let James B. Steedmanhave some notes executed by 
Samuel Doyle to you, and dated about the time of the leasing of the National Road? 

Ans. Samuel Doyle, j3. G. Foster, and myself were the company to whom the 
National Road was leased, and I sold my interest in the lease to Samuel Doyle for 
810,000, and took his notes for that sum, the notes falling due in, I think, from six 
months to live years without interest, and I let Mr. Steedman have two or three 
thousand dollars of them to sell for me ; and he sold them for me and accounted to 
me for the whole. He had no interest whatever in the lease of the road, and there 
was no understanding that he was to receive any portion of it by way of gift or other- 
wise, for any thing done by him in connection with the lease. 

Ques. Was there any understanding that Forrer, Burt & Co. ; and Cooper, 
Shaddinger & Co., were to bid for each otker ? 

Ans. There was no such understanding to my knowledge. 

The securities proposed by me were worth at least a million dollars, to the best 
of my knowledge and belief. 

JOSEPH COOPER. 



[No. 35.] DEPOSITION OF R. A. FORSYTHE= 

I, Robert A. Forsythe, of the county of Lucas, and State of Ohio, first being 
duly sworn, depose and say, that I was the owner of the Roche de Beuf Farm, in 
the county and State aforesaid, when the Miami and Erie Canal was made. This 
eanal passes through the above named farm. I was allowed, by the State, one 
thousand dollars for stone taken out of the canal upon this farm, and for timber 
taken and destroyed, upon other lands in this and the adjoining counties. This 



129 

payment of a thousand dollars was made to me before the farm was sold to James 
B. Steedman, and I regarded it as payment in full for all the stone taken, by the 
>ut of the canal. 

sre this farm to my son, H. H. Forsythe, now of the city of Toledo, and he 
sold it to James B. Steedman. I believe Mr. Steedman paid him twenty-eight 
hundred dollars for it. 

] son claimed damages for the destroying of water power upon this farm, and 
wa L lowed, by the State, seventy-six hundred dollars, out of which he paid Mr. 
hundred dollars, as near as I can recollect. 

R. A. FORSYTHE. 
orn to and signed in my presence, this 24th day of November, 1856, at 
Mai mee City. JOHN A. BLAIR. 

rt A. Forsythe, of the county of Lucas, being sworn, says : 

In your deposition, taken before John A. Blair, of the Committee on 
Pu! ! ;o Works, November 24, 1856, you say, "I was allowed by the State, one 
tno ! dollars for stone taken out of the canal, on the 'Roche de Beuf' Farm, 
an< or timber taken and destroyed, upon other lands in this and adjoining coun- 
ties " Was this thousand dollars received by you as a compensation for the land 
tab • for the canal, and also for the land covered by the dirt and stone taken out 
of the canal, in its construction, as well as a compensation for the stone itselt ? 

Answer. No. The ampunt then paid was for the stone taken out of the canal 
on he 'Roche de Beuf" Farm, and for timber used and taken by the State, in 
this county and the county of Henry. 

Ques. How much land was taken on this farm, exclusive of that taken for the 

road above the canal bridge, for the canal, and to throw the dirt and stone upon? 

I think about six or seven acres, including about one acre covered with 

(Signed) R. A. FORSYTHE. 

orn to and signed before me, this 25th day of December, 1856. 

ELIJAH CLARK, J. P. 



[No. 36.] DEPOSITION OF R. H. NUGEN. 

f.. Nugen, being duly sworn, deposes and says, as follows: 

Question 1st. Are you one of the contractors on Section No. 1 of the Public 
W ks of Ohio, and who constitutes your company ? 

An one of the contractors on Section No. 1. Arnold Medberv, John 

Langhead, and A. J. Dickenson. 

, 2d. What do you get per year for keeping this section in repair? 
Twenty-seven thousand live hundred dolli 
Ques. 3d. Were your company the lowest bidders on tiiis section ? 

1 do not know ; I saw nobody's bid but our own 
Que,. 4th What, reasons igned to you, if any, by the Board, or ant 

member thereof, wl tl 9t bidden -> 

Theie were none. 
Ques. 5th. Have you paid anything, or are you or any of your tirm, 01 
your firm to pay any money or other valuable thing, to any men i 
i of Public Works, or anj one that was a member o( the Board i 

f the letting, <»r had ever been a inemher, or to an\ Other p< tmui, to < 
you to get your contract ? It so state how much, and to whom paid, 

10 — KKI\ JOINT COM. ON I'UD. WOKKS. 



130 

Ans. No, I did not myself; and neither did any of our firm, that I know of. 

R. H. NUGEN. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 22d day of December, 1856. 

G. W. DINGMAN, J. P., 

Of Salem Tp„ Tuscarawas Co., 0. 

[No. 37.] DEPOSITION OF A. J DICKENSON. 

Abner J. Dickenson, being duly sworn, says : 

Question. Are you one of the coLtractors upon Section No. 1, on the Ohio 
Canal, for keepiDg it in repair ? 

Answer. I am a contractor on this section. 

Ques. Was your firm the 1 west bidders upon this section ? 

Ans. I learned after I signed the contract that our bid was not the lowest. " 

dues. Have you paid any money, or other valuable thing, or are you to pay 
anything to any one, to enable you to procure this contract, or did any of your 
firm pay anything to get the contract ? 

Ans. I have not paid anything to procure the contract, nor do I know that my 
partners paid anything, to anv one, for that purpose. 

A. J. DICKENSON. 

Sworn to before me, this 26th day of December, 1856, at the City of Columbus. 

J. A. BLAIR, Chairman pro tern. 



[No. 38.] DEPOSITION OF SAMUEL FORRER. 

The following questions are submitted to me for answers by the u Committee on 
Public Works," to wit : 

First. Are you a contractor on Section Seven of the Miami and Erie Canal ? 

Second. Who are your partners in this contract, and what are their respective 
interests ? 

Third Who first suggested to you to bid upon the public works ? 

Answer 1st. I am one of the contractors for Section 7, Miami and Erie Canal. 

Second. I have not seen our article of agreement with the Board of Public 
Works, but understand that Section 7 was awarded to Forrer, Burt & Co., and that 
the names composing the company were Samuel Forrer, John S. G. Burt and John 
Howard, and that no other names were given to the Board of Public Works. Some 
time after the work was let, John Howard transferred his interest to Joseph Cooper. 
I now consider that myself, Burt and Cooper, with the securities on our bond, are 
alone bound to keep up the repairs, and, therefore, that I have no other partner 
besides Burt and Cooper. I am aware that rumor assigns to several other persons 
an interest in this contract. All that I have heard named are known to the com- 
mittee, and have been, as I understand, summoned to answer in regard to the fact 
of participating in the contract. My own interest is fully defined, it being one-sixth 
of the profits, and a salary of three thousand five hundred dollars per year, for 
taking charge of the repairs. To whom, or in what proportion the five-sixths of the 
contract is assigned by my partners, if any besides themselves, I am unable to state. 
I prefer not even to name the parties, not known in the contract, to whom rumor 
assigns an interest, because I can see no possible reason why any one named should 
desire to conceal such interest, if they have any, when they shall appear before 
you, and because, to name them in this connection, without knowing that they are 
partners, might give an importance to rumor which is not justified by the facts. 



131 

Answer to third question. The idea of bidding for work on the canals originated 
with myself long before any one applied to me to join in partnership ; my intention 
was to select my partners, and attend the letting myself. In this I was defeated by 
severe indisposition, which confined me to my room for several months. A very 
short time before the work was let, I was first called on by a party from Middletown, 
represented by Mr. Joseph Sutphin, next by John S. G. Burt, of Cincinnati, who 
named no one interested with him ; still later others called, all seeming anxious for 
a partnership with me ; I declined all the offers made, and gave no encouragement 
to any, but said to all that I should expect my brother-in law, Mr. John Howard, to 
be one with me, to bid for work, and that if 1 could induce him to go to Columbus 
I would give him my estimates of the value of different sections of work, and 
would authorize him to unite with any one of three parties I should name to him, 
who could furnish the securities required, without involving any of my friends, as 
sureties, and who would consent to my taking charge of the work, with such salary 
as I might deem proper, together with an interest not less than one-sixth of the 
profits. Under these instructions to Mr. Howard 1 now hold the place I occupy in 
relation to the contract on Section 7, Miami and Erie Canal. 

SAMUEL FORRER 

Montgomery county, Ohio. 
Sworn to by Samuel Forrer before me, and subscribed by him in my presence, 

January 1st, 1856. 

J. A. JORDAJN, Notary Public 
for Montgomery county, Ohio. 



[No. 39.] DEPOSITION OF JOHN W. ERWIN. 

John W. Erwin being sworn, says : 

Ques. Are you an engineer on the Miami and Erie Canal ? 

Ans. I am now resident engineer on the Southern Division of the Miami and 
Erie Canal, which embraces that part of Section No. 7 South of St. Mary's Feeder. 
I was appointed in January, 1856. I was also an engineer upon this work in 1851 
and 1852. 

Ques. Who was the engineer on the Middle Division of the Miami Canal at the 
time William Sawyer cleaned out the St. Mary's Basin ? 

Ans. Michael Wallace was the resident engineer at the time. 

Ques. Did you ever measure the work after Mr. Wallace ; if so, state the differ- 
ence, if any, between your measurement and that of Mr. Wallace. 

Ans. After Mr. Wallace was discharged by the Acting Commissioner, A. P. 
Miller, my division was extended so as to embrace a part of Mr. Wallace's division, 
and included the St. Mary's Basin. There was at that time much talk about ihe 
cleaning out of this Basin, and it was said Wallace's estimates were erroneous 
Robert Lambert, one of my Superintendents, furnished me with the dimensions of 
the Basin and requested me to make the estimate ; I did so, and found Mr. Wallace 
had made more cubic yards in the work than I could. 

Ques. What is the size of the basin ? 

Ans. It was about 200 feet by 180 feet, and if one foot was taken out of tin 
bottom it would make about 1,350 cubic yards. I saw the bid of Mr. Sawyer, aim 
it was not less than 20 cents a yard, nor more than 22 cents a yard. From the 
size of the piles of dirt which were said to have been taken out, which were pointed 
out to me, I do not think they would till the basin as much as one foot dt op. I 
think this was in the year 1852. 

JOHN W. ERWIN. 
Signed and affirmed by John W. Erwin, January 6th, 1857, before the Committee 

C. S. HAMILTON, Chairman. 



132 
DEPOSITION OF J. S. G. BURT. 

HiMTMKfcH : — I respond to the following inquiries m q of 

: 

rer, Burt & Co., for keepir 

: your inter contract? 

:h ? 
the 
one who has, or hai 

member of the Board of the letting any thing, or 

ow of any : 

i from any member of -cm 

Mr. Hamlin, th; ~ .re the awards were 

D 

When did yoni firm orii b 
_: 

I I — 

I am " i of Forrer, Bur: >r C rs) 

the Pubic Works of Olio. 
;reof. 
inn of Forrer, Bur T <k Co., who secured this con- 
: sed of Messrs. Samuel Forrer, and John He 
s to any cha y have made sine-, by d» 

private matter, with which the committee 
do. 
I" I have i : en oi any money, or any thing, to 

F y person m 

ave. 

! > the members of the 

2 . - :rwin, Hon, R. C, St-henck, 

. Hon. L, D. Campbe )f wl ] - d me 

lsideration as :. : aid bidder for the Works : I had 

I at our firm would contract before the awards 

1 me to understand that our firm should have an equal 

lafairconsi I presume you can find the 

arred loon file in he office oi Public Wanes. 

Sixth, Our firm or: sane time previous tc ic letting 

-rences and interviews. ireefei 

took | the precise time I am not now able to 6 

-wered all of your inquiries. I expected to have cm- 

whei I retnrued an days since, II twill 

i tisfactory. Your obedient servant, 

JOHH S. G EURT. 

si .'; d before z:^ this 6th day of January, 1357. 

3 H. GODPAE.D, Justice of the Ft 



133 

[No. 41-.] DEPOSITION OF A, B. HUFF. 

The State of Ohio, Paulding County, ss. 

Before me, Jacob Switzer, a Justice of the Peace, in and for said County, per- 
sonally appeared A. B. Huff, of lawful age, who being duly swo a 
law, deposes and says : — That I am a stone-mason by trade, and I wa- 
in and f.bout the first of May, A. D. 1855, by the State as a Superint< 
help take down and rebuild the abutment of Big Flat Bock Aquedu 
Miami & Erie Canal, that had fallen a short time before. And the ma; 
said abutment I found to be done in a very inferior and unwormanlik 
The face wall consisted of stone too small generally, some of which were 
cut. and others not cut at all, varying in thickness from one eighth of a, 
to three inches. In the same courses the deficiencies in the beds or tl 
were filled with spalls or earth. 

And the deponent further says, that there were no suitable headers in 
consequently there was no bond between the face stone and the backii 
occasionally a stone projected a foot or so into the backing, and that the ■■ :ing 
consisted of stone of an inferior quality, generally too small, and withoir 

And the deponent further says, that the spaces or crevices that are usu 
with grout or cement, were filled with earth or sand, and to appearance 
little or no lime attached to it. 

And the deponent further says, that the foundation of the above abutment was 
found to be good, together with the first course of masonry, both of w 
left in, and a new wall erected thereon. 

And the deponent further says, that the masonry in the above abutment was 
entirely defective, and unsuitable for the purposes for which it was inten 

A. B I 
Sworn to before me, and subscribed in my presence, this 30th day of December, 

A. D. 1856. JACOB SWITZER, Justice of tl 



No. 42] DEPOSITION OF SILAS W. LOGAN. 

The State of Ohio, Defiance County, ss. 

Before me, Edward H. Phelps, a Justice of the Peace, in and for sai 
per onally appeared Silas W. Logan, of lawful age, who being duly aw 
law, deposes and says : That some time in the month of May, A. 
the deponent passed by the Big Flat Rock acqueduct about the time 
completed, in said month of May ; and the deponent further says i 
previous to the falling of the aqueduct, before mentioned, he 
said aqueduct, and wis requested by John II. Kiser, Superintendent on 
to < amine the masonry of the aqueduct and found that it \\\ 

.•(turn to top on the south, abutment. The 
eight deep in the trunk of the aqueduct The wall fell during 

ing. 
deponent furth< afterward 

tal i g oul and rebuilding said wall, as a Si 

said wall of said abutment, which had fallen 
dil'i nl sectioi d a back 9 

Bionally a stone projected a fo 

aili of v"i'\ n " . and harnn 

in a from one to three in i ame course) 

omposed of rery small stones, thrown in indn 



134 

which should have been filled with cement were filled with earth or sand, with 
occasionally a barrel ot cement or lime, thrown in dry, to appearance. 

And the deponent further says, that the foundation upon which said wall was 
builc was found to be good, and the bottom course of the old wall was left in, and 
the new wall was built thereon. 

And the deponent further says, that Mr. Hays, one of the contractors, on being 
asked by him if he expected to lose any thing by the aqueduct's falling, said that 
he did nut ; that he, Hays, got scared, and was afraid it would fall, and went and 
saw Steedman, and got his papers fixed so that he, Hays, got his pay before it 
fell 

S. W. LOGAN. 

Sworn to before me, and subscribed in my presence, this 29th day of Decem- 
ber, A. D., 1856. 

EDWARD H. RUSSEL, J. P. 



[No. 43.] SILAS W. LOGAN. 

Silas W. Logan being sworn, says : 

I was present and acted as superintendent of the earth work, and in part of the 
stone work, of the Flatrock aqueduct, from the time its re-constiuction began till it 
was completed. 

Ques. How many bosses or superintendents were there present during the con- 
struction ? 

Ans. There were from fifteen to twenty in all the departments of the work — 
at the stone quarry, Ac. ; each of these got from 83 to 86 a day for about fifty 
days. I know this from seeing the pay list, and from what the bosses and super- 
intendents told me. I drew pay for the whole time, about fifty days, not less, and 
I am satisfl-d they drew for the same time that I did. 

Qjes. Were these men all employed at any kind of work ? 

Aus. More than half of them, I should think, were not doing any thing of any 
advantage tu the State. 

Qies. Was Mr. Steedman present all the time ? 

Ans. He was present most of the time. 

Ques. How long was the aqueduct, and how high were the abutments ? 

Ans. The aqueduct has one reach of about 60 feet, and the abutments about 
20 feet, not more than 25 feet. 

Ques. Was the embankment much damaged by the water where the aqueduct 
fell ? 

Ans. There was not above 18 inches of water in the canal at the time the aque- 
duct fell, and the embankment was not washed away of any account. 

Ques. Who did the carpenter work ? 

Ans Peter Myers was the foreman — and, I think, he got 86 or 87 a day. 

Qies. Did you ever hear him say bow long it would take him, with the force 
under him, to do the work ? 

Ans. He told me several times he could do it in 8 or 10 days, and that we 
would not be ready with the stone work for him. 

Ques. How many hands had he under him ? 

Ans. I think there were from 30 to 35, the whole fifty days. They boarded 
on my boat a short time after we began the work ; I refused to board them longer 
for fear they would damage the boat, and they then went and built a shanty. The 
State f >und the lumber, and paid them for the time they were building it. I refu- 
sed to let them bjard longer on my boat because they were drunken and quarrel- 
some, and I feared would damage the boat. 



135 

Ques. Were these men at work all the time you were upon the work ? 

Ans. They were theie all the time, and I am satisfied they were idle at least 
two thirds of the time. 

Ques. Do you know whether they received pay for the whole fifty days that 
the job was on hands ? 

Ans. I was present several times when they received their pay, and I believe 
they received pay for the whole time. I had a conversation with Peter Myers 
after the work was finished, in Defiance, and he told me that he and bis hands had 
all got pay for the whole time. 

Glues. Was Myers drunk much of the time ? 

Ans. I think he was drunk so as to be totally unfit for business, at least two 
thirds of the time. I know this by seeing him in this condition. 

Ques, Did Mr. Steedman know of bis drunkenness ? 

Ans. Yes. Every one about the work knew of it ? 

dues. How did Myers' hands put in their time, when not at work ? 

Ans. They were generally in the woods, playing cards, or at a doggery, a mile 
or two from the work, known as the " green tree." What I know of this matter 
was from their own conversation. I do not know that all of Myerc' men put in 
their time there, but I think 1 am safe in saying that the majority of them did. 

Ques. What did they pay common laborers per day ? 

Ans. A dollar and a quarter, I think, and the State boarded them. There 
were a great many more men wanting work, than could get it, and they frequently 
stayed about, boarding at the expense of the State, for several days. In sevtral 
instances we were compeled to drive them off, so as to make room at the tables, 
and in the beds, for those who were at work. 

Ques. How many hands were usually employed about the Flatrock aqueduct, 
during the fifty days it was being rebuilt 1 

Ans. I think from two hundred and fifty to three hundred. 

Ques. Could this number have worked to advantage ? 

Ans. They could not ; there was not sufficient room to work so many. I had 
at first, charge of the west wing of the south abutment, and George Young, for a 
part of the time, had charge of the east wing of it. I had from thirty to forty men 
on my wing, and Mr. Young had as many on his, for a while. After Mr. Young 
left, I had charge of the whole abutment, and we were from that time engaged in 
putting up the stone work, and I then worked from thirty to forty men. I am not 
a mason, and was not superintending the mason work proper, but had charge of the 
teams, the dericks, &c. We had too many men entirely ; more than were of any 
sort of use ; they were in each others way. 

Ques. Did you ever hear Mr. Steedman say anything about letting the 
repairs, &c. 

Ans. Sometime prior to the election in 1855, in Defiance, Mr. Steedman said to 
me, that no matter which party beat at the election, he would have control of the 
Public Works for the next five years. After the lettinga io Defianoe, 1 met him 
near Mr. Gilson's office, and he said to me, in reply to some remark made by me, 
to the effect that he and his party had been beaten at the election — that they bad 
beaten our party (the Republican party,) in one thing — they had got the Public 
Works out of their hands. 

Ques. Did Mr. Steedman ever direct you to employ a man who had before been 
dismissed by you 1 

Ans. He did. 

Ques. Who was he ? 

Ans. I think his name was Strubet. He lived about a quarter of a mile from 
the work. 



136 

Ques. Why had you dismissed this man ? 

Ans. Because I considered him totally worthless as a laborer ? 

Ques. Did you tell Steedman that he was worthless as a hand ? 

Ans. I told him he was not good for any thing. 

Ques. Did he (Steedman) atterwards say that you must employ him ? 

Ans. He told me to keep him anyhow; and he stayed about the 

work some days, but did nothing. He afterwards went over to the other 
and was around there the whole time, till the work was done. I saw bin. l arly 
every day, and am sati for all his time. I sometimes saw him g 

pay. I certified to his time account while he was under me. 

Ques. Did you ever see the pay sheet, and if so now was i by 

whom 1 

Ans. It was kept by James G. Haley. I saw it frequently. The sun 
hands were set down in one column, in figures, and opposite to these figures the 
person receiving the money signed his name. There was no statement, as well as 
I recollect, of the services for which the money was paid. 

Clues. Were there any men who were superintendents or hands on other por- 
tions of the canal, and who were receiving pay from the State, who recer. 
the time they put in on this work ? 

Ans. Capt. Taylor, superintendent south of Lockport, and a German, 
intendent irom St. Marys, north, both told me they got pay for the time the} 
on this work. They were there most of the time. I talked with others and -hey 
all said they expected pay. 

Ques. How far were the stone boated ? 

Ans. They were brought from Doyle's quarry, a short distance from the anal 
at the junction, which was about one and a half miles from the aqueduct. 

Ques. Who was the engineer on this work ? 

Ans. William J. Jackson was the regular engineer, and A. L. Backus was there 
nearly all the time. 

Ques. Who was employed to haul the freight around the acqueduct whhe they 
were building the acqueduct? 

Ans. John Paul was employed and was to have fifty cents a ton. 

Ques. How far did he haul it V 

Ans. I think it was an average of about one hundred rods. The State nade 
the road and kept it in repair. 

Ques. Did any one else offer to do this hauling cheaper than Paul ? 

Ans. Darius Eggleston, I think, offered to do it for thirty cents a ton. I think 
I heard the proposition made by Eggleston to Steedman. The hauling w 
subbed out at prices ranging from fifteen to twenty-five cents a ton. 

BLUE CREEK AQUEDUCT. 

Ques. Do you know anything about the Blue creek aqueduct? If so, state 
fully all you know about it. 

Ans. The cutting of the stone was bad, and the mortar and grouting we>e bad. 
The work was so imperfectly done that wa.ter leaked through the stone woik. and 
caused a great deal of difficulty. The embankment was filled in on ice, and with 
timber, and blocks, and old barrels, and the like, and it slipped a great de- 
worked upon it after it began to slip, and we removed the earth-work in oro€r to 
extend the trunk, and this gave me a chance to see Low it had bee 
see how the back part of the abutments were built ; and the stone wori: 
uneven, so much so, that we could not pack the dirt tightly so as to prev; t 
In my opinion, it was the improper manner in which this work was done which 
caused all the trouble and expense which occurred at this place in May, 1855. 

William J. Jackson was the engineer at Blue creek. 



137 

CONDITION OF THE MIAMI AND ERIE CANAL. 

Ques. Have you been acquainted -with the general managem^* f the Miami 
and Erie Canal for several years, and particularly for the last year ? 

Ans. I have been boating upon this canal since 1845, and was ore trip through 
from Toledo to Cincinnati the last season, and I think I have m 1 it so 

much out of repair since I first knew it. I think the main trouble :ason 

resulted from wasting water on the summit level, south ^of St ,nd I 

believe that a proper number of careful lock tenders would have ;ely to 

the State. I saw one man at each end of this level, who said they byed 

to attend to the locks, but I think they did not do much at it. Th ;aked 

badly, and at the Loramie feeder lock, below this level, a boat ran partly into the 
lock, and became fastened on the mitre sill, and the lock leaked so badly that the 
water sunk away from the boat and broke it in two. 

S. W. LOGAN. 

Sworn to and signed, before the Committee, Jan. 13, 1857. 

C. S. HAMILTON, Chairman. 



[No. 44.] JOHN G. ISHAM. 

John G. Isham, being sworn, says : 

In November, 1855, a day or two after the lettings of the canals, on the way 
home I had a conversation with Elijah Dodd, one of the contractors on section-No. 
6, and he told me that he had two shares and Mr. Young had one. 

The day after the lettings, I think it was, I had a conversation with Samuel M. 
Young, the other contractor, at the Neil House, and he told me that Dodd had the 
controliag interest, as he (Dodd) had two shares, (or two-thirds,) and he(Young) 
had one share, (or one-third.) Afterwards, a few days after we g«u home, at 
Maumee City, 1 met Mr. Young on the side-walk in that place, and he again said 
to me, as I distinctly recollect, that he (Young) had one-third of the contract, and 
Dodd had two thirds. They were talking of employing me to superintend the work 
for them, and Mr. Young said it would be just as Dodd said about it, as he had the 
controling interest. 

Ques. Do you know that Dodd or Young had any communication with any 
member of the Board, while the bids were being put in, or prior to the offering of 
them. 

Ans. I know of no such thing. 

Ques. Had you ever an intimation from any member of the Board that the firm 
of Paul, Chamberlain & Co., of which you are a member, should have section No. 
6 at $25,000 ? 

Ans. I never had. 

Ques. What was the bid of Paul, Chamberlain & Co., on section No. 5? 

Ans. I am not sure, but it was about $27,500. 

Ques. Did you help to take out the stone-work of the Flat rock aque luct after 
if, fell down ? 

Ans. I did help to take out part of it. 

Ques. Did you consider it well done ? 

Ans. I thought it was very poorly done. One of th 
work was a want of headers of sufficient length. The groi 
very poor. I was not the regular superintendent on this work, b 
there l'or a short time, by the order of Mr. Steedman, 

Ques. Do you know whether J. B. Steedman has now or 
in section No. 6 ? 



138 

Ans. I do not know that lie has. I have heard such talk in the neighborhood 
where I live, but never heard Dodd, nor Young, nor Steedman say any thing from 
which I could infer that Steedman had any interest. The talk I heard was mere 
rumor ; I know of no fact that supports such a charge. 

Ques. Did you ever hear Elijah Dodd say any thing about having paid any 
thing to any one to secure the withdrawal of a bid ? 

I did not hear him say that they paid any thing to get any one to withdraw a 
bid, but he told me it cost them S4,000 to get the work. They had paid 
Backus and his company, the two Dickeys, Doyle and Backus, a thousand dollarg 
act. 

JOHN G. ISHAM. 






139 



DISTANCES ON THE OHIO CANAL. 



Names of Places. 



Cleveland 

Rathbun's Lock 

Mill Creek 

Tinker's Creek 

Pinery Feeder 

Boston 

Peninsula 

Niles 

Old Portage 

North Akron 

South Akron 

New Portage . .. 

Wolf Creek Lock 

Clinton 

Fulton 

Wellman's Mill 

Massillon 

Navarre and Bethlehem. . . . 

Bolivar 

Zoar 

Jenning's Bridge 

Dover 

Lockport 

New Castle 

Trenton 

Eastport, on Trenton F'der 

Gnadenhutten 

Port Washington 

Newcomerstown 

Evansburg , 

Lewisville 

Roscoe 

Adams' Mill , 

Webbsport , 

Dresden, on Dresden ) 

sidecut ) 

Hartford's-. 

Frazeysburg 

Nash port 

Licking Dam 



as 



Miles 

5 
9 

13 

17 

21 

24 

30 

32 

37 

38 

44 

47 

52 

56 

61 

65 

71 

80 

83 

86 

93 

97 

99 
103 



107 



108 
112 
118 
122 
132 
135 
145 
149 



151 



152 
155 
161 
166 



as 
2 a 



Miles. 
309 
304 
300 
296 
292 
288 
2*5 
279 
277 
272 
271 
265 
262 
257 
253 
248 
244 
238 
229 
226 
223 
216 
212 
210 
206 

210 
201 
197 
191 
187 
177 
174 
164 
160 

162 
157 
154 
148 
143 



OHIO CANAL— Continued. 



Names of places. 



Licking Town 

Newark 

Granville Feeder , 

Munson'n Forge? Granv'e 
Granville ) Feeder. 

Hand's Basin 

Hebron 

Licking Summit . . , 

Millers nort 

Baltimore 

Havensport 

Carroll 

Lockville 

Waterloo 

Winchester 

Rarey sport 

Sharp's Landing 

Lockbourn 

CoLUMBus,on Columbus) 
Feeder \ 

Holmes' Landing 

Mil port and Bloomfield. . 

Circleville 

Westfall 

Yellowbud 

Deer Creek 

Andersonville 

Clinton Mills 

Chillicothe 

Tomlinson's 

Stony Creek 

Head of Big Bottom .... 

Sharonville 

Waverly 

Trimble's Bridge 

Jasper 

Howard's Lock 

Cutler's Station 

Brush Crock 

Portsmouth 



o,3 

6 



Miles. 
170 
176 
181 

184 

187 
182 
185 
189 
191 
196 
202 
204 
206 
209 
210 
214 
215 
221 

232 
224 
228 
236 
241 
246 
250 
252 
256 
258 
264 
267 
269 
276 

283 
286 
291 
29 t 
301 
309 



ag 
sa 



Miles. 
139 
133 
128 
131 
134 
127 
124 
120 
118 
113 
107 
105 
103 
100 

99 

95 

94 



100 



85 
81 
73 
68 
63 
59 
57 
53 
51 
45 
43 
40 
33 
29 
26 
23 
18 
15 
8 




HO 







HOCKIX- 




a i si 

3 5 £ H 


:-s of places. 

< 




Mile* 

25 
23 




- 




- 

- 
Darling 



■ 

; 

Mohic:- 


10 

11 

13 

14 
15 

19 
19 
21 
23 
24 


19 
17 
16 
15 
14 
13 
12 
11 
10 

m 

6 
6 
& 

2 

1 


m'fl Mills 

Rush Creek 16 40 

Me Can n's Mills 39 

Green's Mill 34 

Plunk's Mill 33 

Hccking Falls 29 

Losran • 

Wright's 23 

Pattonsville 22 

Seven Mile Run 20 


Monday Creek 12 


iridge 1 

Mohican Dam. . . j 


Chauncy 49 

Wolf- 5 


, : 


Athens ^ 



"vT ABASE AJ 3AWAL. 



MIAMI CA 






Names c_ 



as 






Manhattan 

TOLEX-O -..:.... , , 

Sidecur 
Termi 

! 

Port Miami , 



: 



- 



Miles, 

•54 



13 
14 



16 



B4 



76 



IB 


70 


25 


63 


30 


55 


36 


52 


44 


44 




36 




31 


61 


27 


70 


18 


31 


1 




4 








QraanmAK, 'an-. includO : 
ing in and out of Ham-;- 
ilton Basin, 67; \ 

CummingsYille 

Ruffner's' Basin 

Carthage 

Lockland 

Safe's Mills 

Burnet's Mills 

Hamilton Sidecut 

Havtt.to:n-, ( end of a : 

Amanda 

MrDDLETO"?r>- 

Franklin 

Miamisburgh 

Carrollton 

Alexanders ville : 

Dry den's Mill; 

:-.'3 Mills ! 

DaVto>" (and including) ; 

in and out of Hamilton > . 

Basin, 67 ..) ' 





Miles. 




66 




61 




57 




56 




53 




46 












37 








26 




24 


- 


17 


; 


11 




9 




- 




7 




6 








141 



MIAMI CANAL EXTENSION. f ST. MARY'S FEEDER AND RESERVOIR. 



Namea of places. 



Dayton 

Lock vi lie 

John's Mills 

Tippecanoe ..... 

Cole's Mills 

Troy 

Culberson's Mills 
Young's Mills . . . 

Piqua 

Johnson's Mills . . 
Lockport (entran 

ney Feeder) 

Newport 

Berlin 

Minster 

Bremen . 

St. Mary's Feeder 

St. Mary's 

Deep Cut 

Vanwert (road crossing) 

Charloe 

Junction 



Sid J 



Miles. 

6 
13 
15 
17 
21 
24 
26 
29 
33 

34 

48 
53 
56 
59 
65 
67 
80 
91 
111 
115 



SIDNEY FEEDER. 



Names of places. 



Lockport 

Sidney 

Port Jefferson .... 



a s 



Miles. 

8 
13 



Miles. 

115 

109 

102 

100 

98 

94 

91 

89 



81 
67 
62 
59 
56 
50 
48 
35 
24 



8 « 



Miles. 
13 
5 




Names of places. 



St. Mary's Feeder, 

East Bank 

Montezuma , 

Celina 









- 'A 



il 



10 
11 



MUSKINGUM IMPROV:. 



Names of places. 



Dresden , 

Simm's Cre ek 

Zanesville 

Taylorsville and Dun-? 

can's Falls \ 

Rokeby and Eagleport. . 

McCoNNELLSVILLE and) 

Malta \ 

Windsor 

Luke's Shute 

Beverly and Waterford. 

Lowell , 

DevoH's 

Marietta and Harmar. . . 



Q 



ti 

6 

16 



M 








65 




55 




48 




38 




33 








12 




5 








(CT Collectors' Officer a 
towns printed in small ca i 



tbtogo 



GENERAL DISTANCES. 

From Cleveland to Roscoe, entrance of Walhonding Canal 

Cleveland to Rochester, head of Walhonding Canal 

Cleveland to I >resden, commencement of Muskingum [mprovi 
Cleveland to Marietta, at termination of Muskingum I 

Cleveland to * 'arroll, entrance of Hocking Canal 

Cleveland to Uhens, termination of Uocking Canal 

Cleveland to Portsmouth, termination of the Ohio Canal 

Manhattan i i Junction of Miami Canal Extension 

Manhattan ti Indiana State Line, via Wabasli and Erie Canal 

Manhatl in to Cincinnati, via Wabash and Erie, and Miami 



242 



ERRATA. 

Page 19, line 25 from top, read Meeson for Mason — same line read 9 for A ; and for 308 read 
398. 
Page 41, third line from bottom, for 293 read 205. 
Other minor errors occur, but these are all that are deemed material. 

CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE. 



t W 8 1 



<?\a'. e - ^v»X .*,&&% °»~ ^,.^ 



A * 
4°* 



» ^ 







"by 




V -•-• 






%, '♦•To 9 ' ^o 

<^ aT .'••* *> 



OS* 















«. i* • .a, A. *JRW^» *?1k A^ *.k^x&a7, 



V. •••'* <<i> T 









v ..i£:* «i 
























> -^ 



0^ ..!••*. > 



C, vP 



<v '-«• " * • * £ 



^ 











^.i^t.V Ati&S y.-^&%. ./^ 



^' .• 



-ov* 



^•o^ 



^•^ - 



.«•», *> V S »*VL'» "^ A •"J!* ** Deacidified using the Bookkeeper proces 

^ «, .'/^Rifek* **t«. ** .*,A%#/>,** •* Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Ox.de 

V";* °MrS$=k' >*V 'SMwk' ' Treatment Date: Nov 2003 

^i^/ ^•'h' : .Bi(W.° « PreservationTechnologie: 

RESERVATIC 



^3Br* 4T <*> °. V #%^* ^^ ^ A *!^ttB^* ^ A WORLD LEADER .N PAPER PRE 

*<*^* 6 ^ *° • * * A V> *••• ^v 1 11 Thomson Pari< Drive 

A V ti «P A> fi o*»« # <J>^ f» V « Cranberry Township. PA 

C ^ yJjtoL* O d* .^sSStoi* ^ C ^a (724)779-2111 



c- ♦«, 



%.'.- 



4^ • 



**o« 



C A 






% 



* o* %. *•?. »« 4 /v <. % 






^ ■ 







•bv* 



c v ♦ 













,<5 °vfv ° ' 



.' ^ y ^ *wg': ^ 



'.• „* v ^ 






C ,'. 












4* ••■' 



;• »°\ 












$*« 






7 *> 



K/ V '^ 











". ^o" 1 



V''--' <*♦' 



>* "o 















•> ' ^ oak: \ / •»-> ^iit V" v 






?,• / % J W* ^ ^ 

G v ^ *• . * * A WVV A G V vD -o . » - A, 



».• ^°-v V 











%' ; ^'/ "\.'^' , \/ V 7 ^ 1 '/ 






• «G ^^ 



>* .^v 










/. 



*•- 

















r$ 







^ :«' •* 




V *^ 










